On propriatary hardware and the origins of Linux (was: IBM Buys Rational...)

[Mark Komarinski]

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:20:09PM -0500, bscott at ntisys.com wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2002, at 5:23pm, pri.nhlug at iadonisi.to wrote:
> > And that's just one of the nice features real firmware.
> 
>   The thing that really makes the firmware in most proprietary Unix systems
> different from PCs is that the firmware is tightly coupled with the
> operating system.  For example, you can usually control OS boot options from
> the ROM monitor.
 
I disagree.  Sun boxes can boot SunOS/Solaris/Linux/???BSD just fine from
their boot monitor.  Alpha boxes can use Tru64/VMS/Linux/???BSD just fine
as well.

>   Now stop and think about what the PC would be like if it was closely
> coupled with the predominant OS sold by most manufacturers.
 
That's not the point.

PC's were designed with this thought:

How many can we sell if we price it for $X?

and

How much will feature Y cost?

You mom doesn't want a boot monitor.  She doesn't care.  So long as it boots
up when she turns it on, she's fine.  Granted, we're a bit more demanding
(since we've seen what 'real' HW architectures can do).

That entire architecture has now been extended into the server room, along
with its faults.  Any additional changes to the BIOS will either break the
predominant OS (and kill that vendor's revenue) or cost too much to
implement for the few customers that want it.  That's one of the reasons
a Sun box costs $5k and a similar PC costs $2k.  You want a CLI boot monitor?
Then pay for it.

>   The reason I don't like Compaq is that their tools all assume you will be
> running MS-Windows.  It is not a coincidence that their remote management
> tools -- which work very well -- also work mainly with MS-Windows.

It's where their revenue stream is - you can't blame them (for that anyway).

>   My point, and how it relates to Linux, is thus: The reason the PC wins
> where nominally "better" proprietary systems have lost is that the PC is not
> under anyone's control.  If the PC were more like proprietary systems,
> chances are, we would not be having this conversation at all, because Linus
> would never have been able to hack together his own Unix kernel on a cheap
> 386.

Doubtful.  HURD existed before Linux and was intended to run on
varying platforms.  What prevents people from building OSes on proprietary
hardware is the fact that it's a huge undertaking to get the people together
and build a virtual development team.  If the Internet were not around
in 1991, Linux would not exist.  But since Linus could get people with varying
skill sets together and work collectively, they could solve the problems,
get the information, and build an OS.

-Mark