OT: For the computer gurus

[Dan Espen]

I don't have a MacBook, but even I know the answer:

"to avoid installing the overbearing bundled software I don't want"

[Wes Groleau]

Unfortunately, Apple is starting to get that way, too. I guess after years of being copied by Microsoft, they decided turn-about is fair play. They even give you a blue screen when they crash. And since Windows no longer crashes daily, it's much harder to tell the difference.

[Dan Espen]

That's right.

[George]

But "religion" (having a belief system) isn't a bad thing. Its when certain parts of the brain that handle reasoning are turned off for some reason and the belief system turns into a mindless extremist position. You see that here with people calling each other stupid and acting like

10 year olds after they dig their toes in knowing that their extremist position is the only way.

[trader4]

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 and individuals. 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[28] 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 kernel.

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. [27]

[trader4]

Yes and in addition it was also the long distance company that was an essential part of they system.

Seems unlikely that AT&T would allow another company to use it's name.

Bell Atlantic only came into existence in the 1980s when AT&T was broken up. It is one of the seven baby bells that were created.

[trader4]

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 ever did.

[Dan Espen]

I see.

So, even though Linus copied the design of UNIX when he wrote Linux. And UNIX was designed at AT&T, it's incorrect to say that Linux was designed by AT&T.

Learn something every day.

[Dan Espen]

I guess because I think design and implementation are 2 different things. I needed you to show up and correct me.

[trader4]

He didn't copy Unix. He used Unix together with work done by others to create a new operating system:

The creation of Linux Linus Torvalds in 2002In 1991, in Helsinki, Linus Torvalds began a project that later became the Linux kernel. It was initially a terminal emulator, which Torvalds used to access the large UNIX servers of the university. He wrote the program specifically for the hardware he was using and independent of an operating system because he wanted to use the functions of his new PC with an 80386 processor. Development was done on MINIX using the GNU C compiler, which is still the main choice for compiling Linux today (although the code can be built with other compilers, such as the Intel C Compiler).[citation needed]

As Torvalds wrote in his book Just for Fun,[10] he eventually realized that he had written an operating system kernel. On 25 August 1991, he announced this system in a Usenet posting to the newsgroup "comp.os.minix.":[11]

Hello everybody out there using minix -

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things)."

If that equates to Linux was designed at Bell Labs, then anything is possible. For starters, it's clear he didn't directly copy Unix, he used Minx which was itself based on Unix as a starting point. But let's assume for a minute that he did use Unix as his starting point. So, let's say I take a Rinnai water heater apart, analyze it, then construct my own product HotWasser, that has similar features, plus a lot of my own unique additons to transform it, make it better. So, it's correct to say Rinnai designed HotWasser?

[HeyBub]

A problem you own, not us.

AT&T Laboratories WAS a money-losing division of AT&T.

Evidently.

I'm glad. Your conversion reduces even further the less-than-1.2% penetration of Linux into the desktop market (compared to 90%+ for Windows).

[Dan Espen]

Right, he didn't copy UNIX. He copied the design of UNIX.

I'm well aware of the history.

You seem to prefer the phrase "He used Unix". That means something very different to me, but whatever.

[trader4]

The issue isn't specifically what Torvalds did or didn't use. It's that the statement that Bell Labs designed Linux is false. It's like saying Henry Ford designed the Chevrolet because the Chevy has some of the same features, design elements that Ford used.

And again, from Torvalds book, he set out to build a terminal emulator, not to copy Unix:

As Torvalds wrote in his book Just for Fun,[10] he eventually realized that he had written an operating system kernel. On 25 August 1991, he announced this system in a Usenet posting to the newsgroup "comp.os.minix.":[11]

"Hello everybody out there using minix - I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things)."

That sure doesn't sound like a process of copying Unix from Bell Labs. How could you set out to copy Unix and only later realize that you'd created an OS kernel?

[trader4]

The problem here is that since Linux was *not* designed at AT&T, there isn't even a clear point in time to reference. Linux is a kernel that was designed in Finland by a guy named Torvalds in 1991. It uses features of Unix which was originally developed at AT&T's Bell Labs in 1969. It also uses features of other OS's that were derivatives of Unix. In commercial application Linux went on to be an open source project with many people's hands in it. How that equates to "AT&T designed Linux" is beyond me.

In the 90s when Linux was developed, Bell Labs was then the product development and research division of Lucent Technologies. Lucent was profitable and successful at the time. But what any of that has to do with Linux, what kind of product Linux is, if it's any good or not, again does not compute.

[Dan Espen]

The only person that said anything close to "AT&T designed Linux" is the person that posted:

"Yep. And what you end up with is a knock-off of a 40-year old operating system designed by a money-losing division of your local telephone company."

Your desire for arguing the fine points of "design" vs. "copy" vs. "implement" vs. a bunch of other terms is of little interest to me.

[trader4]

lephone company.

Really dear? Yet here you are posting again.

You sure did jump on the AT&T bandwagon too, or was it someone who hijacked your puter that posted this:

"So, even though Linus copied the design of UNIX when he wrote Linux. And UNIX was designed at AT&T, it's incorrect to say that Linux was designed by AT&T. "

And yes, one more time, Linux was not designed by AT&T. Still no answer to the question about similar developments. Like if I look at say a Rinnai tankless and then design a new tankless, calling it HotWasser, using features and ideas from Rinnai as well as a bunch of other tankless products, is it OK to say Rinnai designed the HotWasser product? Would you be arguing about whether Rinnai was profitable at the time Rinnai designed the HotWasser? Or would the right answer simply be Rinnai did not design it period?

You also completely ignore the sources that I posted referencing what Torvalds did that outline a far different development of Linux than Torvald "copying" Unix.

[Stormin Mormon]

| | | | | | [Christmas presents]

[homeowner]

While this is true, and you'll get a better computer from a custom builder, if you are looking to spend less, it's probably cheaper to buy from Best Buy or Walmart and buy a spare harddrive to install your chosen OS, and will still save money.

Anything custom made is usually big bux!

[Wes Groleau]

No, he designed his own that worked like Unix.

[krw]

That depends on what your definition of "design" is.