Hacker News Reader

Comment by dserban | Hacker News Reader

Linus Torvalds once said: "If Microsoft ever starts developing apps for Linux, it means I won."

Is this close enough?

Already happened with Skype.

While it's true that they didn't drop support for Skype when they acquired it, and even continued to update it, what are the chances they'd have said "Hey, let's port skype to qt and put it on linux!" on their own?

I think the spirit of Linus's quote was that Microsoft wouldn't necessarily set out to do so, but eventually be forced to develop for Linux in some way whether they wanted to or not.

Well then he already won 17 years ago when MSFT released NetShow player for Linux and some flavours of Unix.

http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/apps/netshow_linux.html

Won what? Besides Nokia is not really Microsoft and Android is not really a Linux, so the answer is probably "not really".

How is Android "not really a Linux ? It runs the Linux kernel. That means it's Linux. No, it's not a distribution of GNU/Linux, but it's a Linux kernel. It's really using Linux. It's as Linux as Ubuntu, as Ubuntu also runs on a Linux kernel.

Why would anybody have cared about Linux except as an academic exercise if not for GNU? If there had been another properly licensed kernel before Linux, we would all be using GNU bolted on top of that.

Linux has been great and Linus is a great steward, but Linux without GNU is a base for creating an OS, not an OS.

I really like GNU, but are you sure that it is GNU that has succeeded and not Linux?

Linux + GNU = small marketshare

Linux + Android = big marketshare

So maybe without GNU, Linux would have gotten some other userland quicker and taken off faster? I don't think it's entirely fair to credit Linux's success to GNU at this point.

What other userland? Without GNU, Linux might never have even gotten written.

Apples to oranges. Those markets have different dynamics, gatekeepers, legacy costs, etc.

> If there had been another properly licensed kernel before Linux, we would all be using GNU bolted on top of that.

BSD?

BSD was is a legal limbo between 1992–1994, and by then Linux had gained more popularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi

If uname(2) says it’s Linux, it has to be Linux.

    cat >/bin/uname <<EOF
    #!/bin/sh
    echo Linux
    EOF
    chmod +x /bin/uname

I see your point; that being said, I was talking about the system call uname(2), not the command line utility uname(1). It's somewhat more difficult to fake that, you need to know your way around C the very least.

>not really a linux

I lol'd

But what if we mostly just want to feel smug?

Microsoft have been submitting kernel patches for years now, you know.

kernel patches that directly benefit their own products, like making it easier to run virtual machines, etc. Not from the goodness and kindness of their wonderful, generous hearts.

So? The criteria wasn't "when Microsoft love Linux" the criteria was "when Microsoft feel compelled to support Linux."

Well, the quote does say "apps"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com