From: Grozdan Nikolov <microchip@chello.be>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: How innovative is Linux?
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:17:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200706231417.16086.microchip@chello.be> (raw)
Hello gentlemen and ladies.
As a Linux user for many years now (regulars user, not a programmer), I want
to congratulated you all for the great work you all have done in making Linux
widely supported and compatible with a lot of hardware. Recently, I was on a
search to see how the Linux kernel itself compares to other Unix kernels
(*BSD, Solaris, AIX, etc) in terms of *real* innovation. After reading
various articles on the net about technology used in Linux and the other
Unixes, especially after reading the Solaris Vs Linux articles written by Dr.
Nikolai Bezroukov -
http://www.softpanorama.org/Articles/solaris_vs_linux.shtml and
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Torvalds/index.shtml , I came to the
conclusion (and correct me if I'm wrong on that) that Linux is not innovative
at all when compared to the real Unixes in terms of technology. From what I
understand from the articles is that Linux rips off a lot of technologies
originally invented by other Unixes but it does very little original
innovation on its own. How come?
Isn't *real* innovation important anymore in Linux? Or did Linux became a
commercial "fast buck bitch" for various corporations like IBM, Intel, Red
Hat, etc and *real* innovation has stalled? A lot of stuff is ported to
Linux, but all of this stuff isn't Linux' own innovation rather existing
technology from other companies/Unixes. Solaris invented ZFS, dtrace, RPC,
PAM, NFS, RBAC, etc, FreeBSD invented jails (lightweight in-kernel virtual
machines), IBM/AIX invented volume manager... just to name a few. Linux'
record in innovation looks extremely unconvincing for such a mature stage of
development (over 10 years). What has Linux invented on its own? Ext and Ext2
were a rip off from the Unix UFS/FFS, in the early years Linux didn't even
had its own TCP/IP stack, the recently announced BTRFS is a rip off of ZFS,
the Linux kernel tracing tool is a joke compared to dtrace in Solaris and is
hardly a Linux *real* innovation, etc
Further, I'm concerned of the state Linux is now in. Linux doesn't have a well
defined API interface thus for its change in almost every "stable" kernel
release. In terms of technological innovation it isn't close to one of the
BSD kernels or Solaris, it just tries to mimic them. How about making Linux
fully POSIX/SVR4 compliant so that the Open Group can certified it as a
*real* Unix and not a rip off? How about innovating something new that no one
in the Unix camp has invented? How about defining a API that doesn't change
so often thus breaking a lot of stuff? How about having some sort of
quality-assurance program to ensure that the code in the Linux kernel is of
*very* high quality?
I also though that Linux' main role was to replace Windows and
corporate/proprietary lock-in but instead of doing that it began to replace
its own fathers and mothers (the other Unixes) and became a easy exploit for
$$$ hungry IPO's looking for a fast buck and a high fly. Seems to me that
*real* innovation in Linux isn't important anymore but the thing that has
become more important for Linux is commercial exploits and slaughter of other
fellow Unixes, even though Linux is inferior to their innovative technology.
To put it simple, Linux gets all the credits and recognition while the Unix
camps are doing the *real* innovative work.
I apologize if this mail looks more like a rant, but I really need these
questions answered because if not, I will be left in a state of shame that
Linux, in the early years was such a beautiful thing, but as time passed by,
it just became one big commercial exploit without *real* innovation.
Please CC me as I'm not subscribe to this mailing list,
Thanks!
next reply other threads:[~2007-06-23 12:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-23 12:17 Grozdan Nikolov [this message]
2007-06-23 14:43 ` How innovative is Linux? Alan Cox
2007-06-23 15:22 ` Grozdan Nikolov
2007-06-23 15:46 ` Alan Cox
2007-06-23 16:12 ` Torsten Duwe
2007-06-23 16:19 ` Grozdan Nikolov
2007-06-23 16:42 ` Torsten Duwe
2007-06-23 16:54 ` Matthew Jacob
2007-06-23 17:30 ` jimmy bahuleyan
2007-06-23 17:49 ` Diego Calleja
2007-06-23 19:23 ` Alan Cox
2007-06-23 21:02 ` Al Viro
2007-06-23 22:13 ` Alan Cox
2007-06-23 18:12 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-06-23 19:44 ` Alan Cox
2007-06-23 17:38 ` Benny Amorsen
2007-06-23 19:18 ` Jeffrey V. Merkey
2007-06-23 18:36 ` Grozdan Nikolov
2007-06-24 4:31 ` Rik van Riel
2007-06-23 22:02 ` Carlo Wood
2007-06-23 22:16 ` David Kane
[not found] ` <345c044f0706231513u46d870es6539bdf5797b305b@mail.gmail.com>
2007-06-23 22:27 ` Alan Cox
2007-06-25 9:39 ` Hiro Yoshioka
2007-06-25 22:57 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-06-24 21:36 ` Nikita Danilov
2007-06-23 18:02 ` Satyam Sharma
2007-06-23 18:17 ` Grozdan Nikolov
2007-06-23 17:53 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2007-06-23 18:15 ` Grozdan Nikolov
2007-06-23 18:54 ` jimmy bahuleyan
2007-06-23 19:06 ` Grozdan Nikolov
2007-06-23 23:15 ` Jesper Juhl
2007-06-25 15:12 ` Lennart Sorensen
2007-06-25 15:15 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-06-25 16:37 ` Randy Dunlap
2007-06-25 16:42 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-06-25 17:51 ` jimmy bahuleyan
2007-06-26 12:26 ` Helge Hafting
2007-06-23 17:43 Al Boldi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200706231417.16086.microchip@chello.be \
--to=microchip@chello.be \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).