Why is Linux successful?

　Linux, the Unix-like operating system kernel developed by Linus Torvalds in 1991, has become the center of the open source world. People can't help but ask why Linux succeeded while so many similar projects including GNU HURD and BSD failed. ?

　One of the most puzzling questions in the history of the free software and open source world is why Linux has achieved such brilliant success, but other projects that also tried to create free and open source, Unix-like operating system kernels have not been so successful. Success? This question is difficult to answer, but I have summarized some reasons and share them with you below.

But first, let’s be clear: what I mean when I talk about Linux being a huge success. I say this in relation to other Unix-like operating system kernels, some of which are open source and some of which are not, and which flourished during the period when Linux was born. GNU's HURD, a Free kernel launched in May 1991, is one of them. Others include Unix that most people have never heard of, such as various Unix derivatives of BSD developed by the University of California, Berkeley, the Unix system Xenix led by Microsoft, and academic versions of Unix including Minix. , and the original Unix developed under the auspices of AT&T. It had been crucial to the development of computing in academia and business in earlier decades, but had all but disappeared from view by the 1890s.

In addition, it should be noted that I am talking about the kernel here, not the complete operating system. To a large extent, the success of the Linux kernel is due to the GNU project as a whole. The GNU project produced a critical set of tools, including compilers, debuggers, and BASH shell implementations, that were necessary for building a Unix-like operating system. But GNU developers have never developed a viable version of the HURD kernel (although they are still working on it). Instead, Linux presents itself as a kernel that tightly connects the various parts of GNU, although this goes beyond the original intention of GNU.

Therefore, it is worth asking why Linux, a kernel launched by Linus Torvalds, an unknown programmer in Finland in 1991 - the same year as HURD - can withstand the test and develop? In the general environment of the time, Many Unix-like kernels with strong commercial support and led by popular hackers of the day failed to develop. To illustrate this problem, I found some explanations related to this problem. To do this I researched the history of the free software and open source worlds, and the pros and cons of different interpretations.

　Linux adopts a decentralized development method

　This view comes from Eric S. Raymond’s article, “Cathedrals and Bazaars” and related materials. These data verify a situation: software development is most efficient when a large number of contributors continuously collaborate in a decentralized organizational structure. Linux development demonstrates this, in contrast to, for example, GNU HURD, which takes a relatively more centralized approach to managing code development. As a result, as Raymond said, it was clear that a complete operating system had not been successfully built within ten years.

　To a certain extent, this explanation makes sense, but there are still some obvious shortcomings. For example, Torvalds undoubtedly assumed a more authoritative role in guiding the development of Linux code, and he could decide to accept or reject code, which was not what Raymond and others thought. Secondly, this view cannot explain how GNU managed to produce so much excellent software despite its failure to develop a viable system kernel. If only decentralized development methods could well guide projects in the open source software world, then all GNU programming efforts should be in vain, but this is not the case.

　Linux is practical, while GNU is utopian

Personally, I think this statement is the most compelling, that is, the reason why Linux develops so quickly is because its creator is a practical person. , who originally wanted to write a kernel that would run a stripped-down version of the Unix operating system on his home computer, rather than become part of the world-changing free software that was the GNU Project's Consistent goals.

However, there are still some aspects of this explanation that are not completely convincing. In particular, although Torvalds himself believed in the principle of pragmatism, not everyone involved in his projects, past or present, shared his belief in this principle. Despite this, Linux has been successful.

 And if pragmatism is the key to the continued development of Linux, then we have to ask again: Why did GNU succeed in developing so many useful tools in addition to failing to develop a kernel? If you have a certain kind of firmness in software If political beliefs are a stumbling block in the pursuit of successful projects, then GNU should have been a complete failure, rather than a pioneer who developed so many excellent software packages that still provide a solid foundation for the IT world today.

Finally (but not least), many of the Unix variants born in the late 1880s and early 1990s, especially some of the BSD forks, were products of pragmatism. Their developers were committed to developing Unix variants that could be shared freely without being restricted by expensive commercial licenses, but they were not entirely ideological about programming or sharing code. The same goes for Torvalds, so it's hard to argue that the success of Linux and the failure of other Unix projects are ideological.

　　Operating System Design

　 When talking about the success of Linux, what cannot be ignored are the many technical differences between Linux and other Unix variants. Richard Stallman, the founder of the GNU project, explained in an e-mail to me why development of HURD frequently lagged behind: "GNU Hurd was really not a practical success. Part of the reason was that its basic design made it seem like A research project. (The reason why I chose this design is that it is a shortcut to quickly implement a working kernel.)"

Linux is also different from other Unixes in that Torvalds wrote all the code for Linux alone. Variants. When he first released Linux in August 1991, one of his original intentions was to have his own Unix without using someone else's code. This feature made Linux different from most Unix variants of the same period, which generally derived their base code from AT&T Unix or Berkeley's BSD.

I am not a computer scientist, so I am not qualified to judge whether Linux code is better than other Unix code to explain the success of Linux. While this doesn't explain the cultural and personnel differences between Linux and other Unix kernels, it makes sense to me because operating system design seems to be more important than code in understanding Linux's success.

　The community behind Linux provides strong support

stallman also wrote that the "main reason" for Linux's success is that "Torvalds made Linux a free software, so there was more community support pouring into Linux than Hurd." Developing." But this is not a perfect explanation for Linux's growth trajectory, because it does not explain why free software developers followed Torvalds instead of HURD or some other Unix, but it still points out that this change is A large part of the reason for the popularity of Linux.

There is a more comprehensive reason for the free software community's decision to support Linux to explain why developers do so. At first, Linux was an obscure little project, insignificant by any standards compared to other attempts at the time to create a more free Unix, such as NET BSD and 386/BSD. Likewise, it was initially unclear whether the goals of Linux and the free software movement aligned. At the beginning, Torvalds only released Linux under a certificate that prevented Linux from being used commercially. As for his later switch to using GNU's General Public Certificate in order to protect the openness of the source code, that's a story later.

So, these are the explanations I have found for the success of Linux as an open source operating system. To be sure, Linux has achieved success in some aspects (but for example, the desktop version of Linux has never become what its proponents wanted it to be. ) has been a measurable success. In short, Linux has become a cornerstone of the computing world in a way unlike any other Unix-like operating system. Perhaps Apple's OS X and iOS systems, which originated from BSD, are close to this, but they do not play such an important central role in other aspects as Linux affects the Internet.

Do you have any other thoughts on why Linux became what it is, or why its competitors in the Unix world have all but faded into obscurity? If so, I'd love to hear your thoughts. (Granted, BSD variants still have a following today, and some commercial Unixes are still important for Red Hat (RHT) to support their users. But none of these Unixes has nearly conquered the world like Linux. Covering every field from web servers to smartphones)

Receive LAMP Brothers’ original Linux operation and maintenance engineer video/detailed Linux tutorial for free. For details, please contact the official website customer service: http://www.lampbrother.net/linux/