Someone gave you bad advice.
How hard is it to download a CD image,
burn it to CD and then boot from the CD?
You can test drive Linux right from the CD, no need to install
anything on your computer.
If you go no farther, at least you've seen how easy it is to operate.
To install, just select the option to install.
What you end up with far exceeds what you get from a Windows install.
First off, it's graphically prettier and more functional.
Second, it comes LOADED with applications. Things you'd have to shell
out big bucks for on Windows. A default install leaves you with dozens
Then you are just a click away from a massive library of additional
programs you can install, all at no cost.
But hey, do what you want.
Oh, that was an argument? I didn't recognize it.
Okay, right, if something is 40 years old, of course it's bad,
can't argue with that.
AT&T was losing money at the time?
Somehow I doubt it, but well, if they were losing money, then
of course Linux must be bad. It follows. Can't argue with iron clad
logic like that.
Both Linux and Democrats are a religion? I need a new dictionary.
I've met my betters and need to heal my wounds.
I think I'll just put you in my killfile while the wounds heal.
Thanks for your valuable insight. Lesson learned.
They were sure loosing mony on UNIX. So was SCO (The Santa Cruz
Operation) and so did Microsoft on their Xenix version - as did
"trusted". Why? because, for one thing, the market was too small to
carry the load of the development and licencing fees.
Whether the overall effort was a money loser would be hard to calculate.
I was at Bell Labs at the time and we did all our mainframe development
from UNIX. There really wasn't an alternative at the time. While other
companies were still feeding punched cards into their mainframes AT&T
could afford to put cheap terminals on every desk and reap the
Redhat has been turning a profit for at least the last 3 years.
Anyway making a profit isn't an indicator of the value of giving Linux
Well, the comment I was replying to was
"designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company".
Linux is of course the work of a large group of people that freely
contribute their time, plus the work of some corporations.
The design originated at Bell Labs which wasn't a local telephone
company, at the time it was a division of AT&T.
If you say so.
My memory was that at the time we had NY Bell in NY,
NJ Bell in NJ, etc. AT&T was the parent holding company
owning all the regions, plus Bell Labs.
At least that's the way it was explained to me shortly after
UNIX was developed and I was working at Bell Labs.
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:19:35 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Never heard of them. American Telephone and Telegraph was the holding
company for the local Bell Telephone companies. Where I lived, it was
Bell of Pennsylvania.
I believe there was an American Telegraph and Telephone in Atlantic
County New Jersey though.
There was also Bell Atlantic that is now Verizon.
Then why were you buying into the statement that
Linux was designed at a phone company? That is the
essential part of the whole premise that's wrong. Not
which part of AT&T developed Linux, because no part
So, if someone gets it wrong and claims that Linux
was designed at AT&T or your local phone company,
or whatever, you just go with the flow? Linux was
not designed by or at AT&T period.
Which of course is again wrong. Linux was not deveolped
at Bell Labs. It was initially created by Linus Torvlads in
Finland. Following development involved many companies
Yes, it was based on earlier work done on Unix, which was
developed at Bell Labs. But the whole point of Linux was
to have an open source OS suitable for PCs. That is
something Bell Labs never did. And it included ideas from
other OS's as well. To say that Linux was designed at AT&T,
you might as well say that Chevrolets were designed at Ford.
"GenesisIn 1991 while attending the University of Helsinki, Torvalds
became curious about operating systems and frustrated by the
licensing of MINIX, which limited it to educational use only. He began
to work on his own operating system which eventually became the Linux
Torvalds began the development of the Linux kernel on MINIX, and
applications written for MINIX were also used on Linux. Later Linux
matured and further Linux development took place on Linux systems"
BSDAlthough not released until 1992 due to legal complications,
development of 386BSD, from which NetBSD and FreeBSD descended,
predated that of Linux. Linus Torvalds has said that if 386BSD had
been available at the time, he probably would not have created Linux.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.