https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.minix/c/dlNtH7RRrGA/m/Sw...
> (Linus Torvalds, regarding the fact that Linux started off as a terminal emulator.)
http://neil.franklin.ch/Jokes_and_Fun/Linux_Quotes.html
That's the best reference I can find, but even if it's totally legit it doesn't make any sense to me.
BTW, in early versions of Slackware emacs was bundled in its own software category due to its huge size when selecting which packages to install on first boot.
> 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).
> I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
> Linus (torv...@kruuna.helsinki.fi)
> PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.
I wouldn’t call it incredibly impressive. The path on how to write a minimal multi-tasking kernel has been beaten decades ago.
Writing a kernel that can boot and do a few things is ‘just’ a matter of being somewhat smart and have some perseverance. Doing it for RISC-V complicates things a bit compared to x86, but there, too, the information about initialising the hardware often is easily obtained (for example: https://wiki.osdev.org/RISC-V_Meaty_Skeleton_with_QEMU_virt_...; I wouldn’t know whether this project used that)
I think the author agrees, given (FTA) that they wrote “This is a redo of an exercise I did for my undergraduate course in operating systems”
It’s work, may be nice work, but I think everybody with a degree in software engineering could do this. Yes, the OS likely will have bugs, certainly will have rough edges, but getting something that can multi-process, with processes shielded from each other by a MMU isn’t hard anymore.
Ideally this would be true, but it hasn't been my experience at all. At least with American graduates, I can't speak to other countries.
This made me look up what he has been up to, there is a 2023 edition of "Modern Operating Systems" which covers cloud virtualization and Android along with everything that came before, hm, tempting.
And if you do want the more historical content, https://www.projectoberon.net/
I was studying at Monash, which is considered a solid university here, and holy moly are the standards low. I had classmates in the second year of my machine learning postgrad asking me things like "What is machine learning?", and they all graduated and found jobs anyway.
Which is odd since their universities have built two of the most interesting CS projects I can think of (Mercury and L4). And WWWJDIC I suppose.
Besides it's much easier nowadays, if something's wrong you can feed ChatGPT your GDT definition for example and find out if you misplaced a value, which used to be a PITA to debug.
As the parent comment says, I think the path to a booting usermode kernel has long been beaten, it's not trivial but it's not that hard either, I believe the impressive stuff is once you get out of "tutorial land" and implement a network stack, or a UI stack, etc.
Though I'm unsure how differing licenses might have affected this - I suspect that really early in it's development the "copyleft" nature of the GPL Linux didn't make as much of a difference, as from what I remember most commercial uses of Linux didn't come until it had already gained significant momentum.
Copyleft encourages a collaborative relationship between entities because it makes trying to play it close to the chest with IP involve more legal effort (if it's possible at all).
Commercial support for Linux was... Sparse... before the early 2000s.
Agreed, funnily enough GNU tools/compilers also ended up getting installed on a lot of proprietary UNIXes because proprietary UNIX was mostly shit (in user space!). At least most of the ones I had the misfortune to have to work on.
If Stallman had started with a kernel, there would be very few people who had the legal right to run any utilities or apps on the new kernel whereas GNU's utilities and apps (e.g., Emacs) were immediately useful (i.e., without breaking any copyright law or violating any software license) to a large population, namely, anyone with an account on a proprietary Unix system, which explains why Stallman chose to start with the userland.
> If Stallman had started with a kernel, there would be very few people who had the legal right to run any utilities or apps on the new kernel
In the Unix world, there was no tradition of binary compatibility: you couldn't just take a binary compiled for NeXTSTEP and run it on Solaris or on Linux: you needed to recompile, which means you needed a C compiler and the source code for the program you want to run, and most users of Unix in the 1980s didn't have a practical way to get the source code (and if he did have access to the source code, using to to port the program to a new kernel was probably a copyright violation). Stallman could have tried to start a tradition of binary compatibility in the Unix world. That is one of the strategies he could have chosen for the GNU project: i.e., he could have picked a proprietary Unix, Solaris, say, and make sure the kernel of his GNU system could run all (or most) binaries that run on Solaris. But that strategy ran the risk that the owner of Solaris might have sued to stop this and the courts might have sided with owner, requiring the GNU project to shut down, pay the owner (Sun) a lot of money or start over with some other strategy.
I found a shorter reply to your comment, which I will now write:
>when it comes to the GNU project and the whole Free Software movement is the ability to run _any_ program, be it non-free software or free software.
Just because the GNU project allowed non-free software to run on GNU doesn't mean there existed in the 1980s a userland that would run on GNU if GNU had consisted of just a kernel (or just a kernel and a C library and a C compiler).