Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
History of Linux
View on Wikipedia
Linux began in 1991 as a personal project by Finnish student Linus Torvalds to create a new free operating system kernel. The resulting Linux kernel has been marked by constant growth throughout its history. Since the initial release of its source code in 1991, it has grown from a small number of C files under a license prohibiting commercial distribution to the 4.15 version in 2018 with more than 23.3 million lines of source code, not counting comments,[1] under the GNU General Public License v2 with a syscall exception meaning anything that uses the kernel via system calls are not subject to the GNU GPL.[2]: 7 [3][4]
Events leading to creation
[edit]
After AT&T had dropped out of the Multics project, the Unix operating system was conceived and implemented by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie (both of AT&T Bell Laboratories) in 1969 and first released in 1970. Later they rewrote it in a new programming language, C, to make it portable. The availability and portability of Unix caused it to be widely adopted, copied and modified by academic institutions and businesses.
In 1977, the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) was developed by the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) from UC Berkeley, based on the 6th edition of Unix and UNIX/32V (7th edition) from AT&T. Since BSD contained Unix code that AT&T owned, AT&T filed a lawsuit (USL v. BSDi) in the early 1990s against the University of California. This strongly limited the development and adoption of BSD.[5][6]
Onyx Systems began selling early microcomputer-based Unix workstations in 1980. Later, Sun Microsystems, founded as a spin-off of a student project at Stanford University, also began selling Unix-based desktop workstations in 1982. While Sun workstations did not utilize commodity PC hardware, like Linux was later developed for, it represented the first successful commercial attempt at distributing a primarily single-user microcomputer that ran a Unix operating system.[7][8]
In 1981 IBM entered the personal computer market with the IBM PC. Powered by an x86-architecture Intel 8088 processor, the machine was based on open architecture and third-party peripheral.
In 1983, Richard Stallman started the GNU Project with the goal of creating a free UNIX-like operating system.[9] As part of this work, he wrote the GNU General Public License (GPL). By the early 1990s, there was almost enough available software to create a full operating system. However, the GNU kernel, called Hurd, had issues with its design and project management, and progress slowed significantly after the development of Linux.[10]
In 1985, Intel released the 80386, the first x86 microprocessor with a 32-bit instruction set, a memory management unit with paging, and capable of addressing up to 4 GB of RAM with a flat memory model and 64 TB of virtual memory.[11]
In 1986, Maurice J. Bach, of AT&T Bell Labs, published The Design of the UNIX Operating System.[12] This definitive description principally covered the System V Release 2 kernel, with some new features from Release 3 and BSD.
In 1987, MINIX, a Unix-like system intended for academic use, was released by Andrew S. Tanenbaum to exemplify the principles conveyed in his textbook, Operating Systems: Design and Implementation. While source code for the system was available, modification and redistribution were restricted. In addition, MINIX's 16-bit design was not well adapted to the 32-bit features of the increasingly cheap and popular Intel 386 architecture for personal computers. In the early nineties a commercial UNIX operating system for Intel 386 PCs was too expensive for private users.[13]
These factors and the lack of a widely adopted, free kernel provided the impetus for Torvalds' starting his project. He has stated that if either the GNU Hurd or 386BSD kernels had been available at the time, he likely would not have written his own.[14][15]
The creation of Linux
[edit]
In 1991, while studying computer science at University of Helsinki, Linus Torvalds began a project that later became the Linux kernel. He wrote the program specifically for the hardware he was using and independent of an operating system because he wanted to use the functions of his new PC with an 80386 processor. Development was done on MINIX using the GNU C Compiler.
On 3 July 1991, in an effort to implement Unix system calls in his project, Linus Torvalds attempted to obtain a digital copy of the POSIX standards documentation with a request to the comp.os.minix newsgroup.[16] He was not successful in finding the POSIX documentation, so Torvalds initially resorted to determining system calls from SunOS documentation owned by the university for use in operating its Sun Microsystems server. He also learned some system calls from Tanenbaum's MINIX text that was a part of the Unix course.
As Torvalds wrote in his book Just for Fun,[17] he eventually ended up writing an operating system kernel. On 25 August 1991, he (at age 21) announced this system in another posting to the comp.os.minix newsgroup:[18]
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 (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)
PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT portable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.
— Linus Torvalds[19]
According to Torvalds, Linux began to gain importance in 1992 after the X Window System was ported to Linux by Orest Zborowski, which allowed Linux to support a GUI for the first time.[17]
Naming
[edit]
Linus Torvalds had wanted to call his invention Freax, a portmanteau of "free", "freak", and "x" (as an allusion to Unix). During the start of his work on the system, he stored the files under the name "Freax" for about half of a year. Torvalds had already considered the name "Linux", but initially dismissed it as too egotistical.[17]
In order to facilitate development, the files were uploaded to the FTP server (ftp.funet.fi) of FUNET in September 1991. Ari Lemmke at Helsinki University of Technology (HUT), who was one of the volunteer administrators for the FTP server at the time, did not think that "Freax" was a good name. Therefore, he named the project "Linux" on the server without consulting Torvalds.[17] Later, however, Torvalds consented to "Linux".
To demonstrate how the word "Linux" should be pronounced ([ˈliːnɵks]), Torvalds included an audio guide (ⓘ) with the kernel source code.[20]
Linux under the GNU GPL
[edit]Torvalds first published the Linux kernel under its own licence,[21] which had a restriction on commercial activity:
2. Copyrights etc This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part of it may be redistributed provided you do the following: - Full source must be available (and free), if not with the distribution then at least on asking for it. - Copyright notices must be intact. (In fact, if you distribute only parts of it you may have to add copyrights, as there aren't (C)'s in all files.) Small partial excerpts may be copied without bothering with copyrights. - You may not distibute this for a fee, not even "handling" costs. Mail me at "torvalds kruuna.helsinki.fi" if you have any questions.
The software to use with the kernel was software developed as part of the GNU project licensed under the GNU General Public License, a free software license. The first release of the Linux kernel, Linux 0.01, included a binary of GNU's Bash shell.[22]
In the "Notes for linux release 0.01", Torvalds lists the GNU software that is required to run Linux:[22]
Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info.[22]
In 1992, he suggested releasing the kernel under the GNU General Public License. He first announced this decision in the release notes of version 0.12. GPL took effect as of 1 February 1992.[23] On 7 March 1992 he published version 0.95 using the GNU GPL.[24] Linux and GNU developers worked to integrate GNU components with Linux to make a fully functional and free operating system.[25] Torvalds has stated, "making Linux GPLed was definitely the best thing I ever did."[26]
Around 2000, Torvalds clarified that the Linux kernel uses the GPLv2 license, without the common "or later clause".[3][4]
After years of draft discussions, the GPLv3 was released in 2007; however, Torvalds and the majority of kernel developers decided against adopting the new license.[27][28][29]
GNU/Linux naming controversy
[edit]The designation "Linux" was initially used by Torvalds only for the Linux kernel. The kernel was, however, frequently used together with other software, especially that of the GNU project. This quickly became the most popular adoption of GNU software. In June 1994 in GNU's Bulletin, Linux was referred to as a "free UNIX clone", and the Debian project began calling its product Debian GNU/Linux. In May 1996, Richard Stallman published the editor Emacs 19.31, in which the type of system was renamed from Linux to Lignux. This spelling was intended to refer specifically to the combination of GNU and Linux, but this was soon abandoned in favor of "GNU/Linux".[30]
This name garnered varying reactions. The GNU and Debian projects use the name, although most people simply use the term "Linux" to refer to the combination.[31]
Official mascot
[edit]
Torvalds announced in 1996 that there would be a mascot for Linux, a penguin. This was because when they were about to select the mascot, Torvalds mentioned he was bitten by a little penguin (Eudyptula minor) on a visit to the National Zoo & Aquarium in Canberra, Australia. Larry Ewing provided the original draft of today's well known mascot based on this description. The name Tux was suggested by James Hughes as derivative of Torvalds' UniX, along with being short for tuxedo, a type of suit with color similar to that of a penguin.[17]: 138
New development
[edit]Linux Community
[edit]The largest part of the work on Linux is performed by the community: the thousands of programmers around the world that use Linux and send their suggested improvements to the maintainers. Various companies have also helped not only with the development of the kernels, but also with the writing of the body of auxiliary software, which is distributed with Linux. As of February 2015, over 80% of Linux kernel developers are paid.[2]: 11
It is released both by organized projects such as Debian, and by projects connected directly with companies such as Fedora and openSUSE. The members of the respective projects meet at various conferences and fairs, in order to exchange ideas. One of the largest of these fairs is the LinuxTag in Germany, where about 10,000 people assemble annually to discuss Linux and the projects associated with it.[citation needed]
Open Source Development Lab and Linux Foundation
[edit]The Open Source Development Lab (OSDL) was created in the year 2000, and is an independent nonprofit organization which pursues the goal of optimizing Linux for employment in data centers and in the carrier range. It served as sponsored working premises for Linus Torvalds and also for Andrew Morton (until the middle of 2006 when Morton transferred to Google). Torvalds worked full-time on behalf of OSDL, developing the Linux kernels.
On 22 January 2007, OSDL and the Free Standards Group merged to form The Linux Foundation, narrowing their respective focuses to that of promoting Linux in competition with Microsoft Windows.[32][33] As of 2015, Torvalds remains with the Linux Foundation as a Fellow.[34]
Companies
[edit]Despite being freely available, companies profit from Linux. These companies, many of which are also members of the Linux Foundation, invest substantial resources into the advancement and development of Linux, in order to make it suited for various application areas. This includes hardware donations for driver developers, cash donations for people who develop Linux software, and the employment of Linux programmers at the company. Some examples are Dell, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard, which validate, use and sell Linux on their own servers, and Red Hat (now part of IBM) and SUSE, which maintain their own enterprise distributions. Likewise, Digia supports Linux by the development and LGPL licensing of the Qt toolkit, which makes the development of KDE possible, and by employing some of the X and KDE developers.
Desktop environments
[edit]KDE was the first advanced desktop environment (version 1.0 released in July 1998), but it was controversial due to the then-proprietary Qt toolkit used.[35] GNOME was developed as an alternative due to licensing questions.[35] The two use a different underlying toolkit and thus involve different programming, and are sponsored by two different groups, German nonprofit KDE e.V. and the United States nonprofit GNOME Foundation.
As of April 2007, one journalist estimated that KDE had 65% of market share versus 26% for GNOME.[35] In January 2008, KDE 4 was released prematurely with bugs, driving some users to GNOME.[36] GNOME 3, released in April 2011, was called an "unholy mess" by Linus Torvalds due to its controversial design changes.[37]
Dissatisfaction with GNOME 3 led to a fork, Cinnamon, which is developed primarily by Linux Mint developer Clement LeFebvre. This restores the more traditional desktop environment with marginal improvements.
The relatively well-funded distribution, Ubuntu, designed (and released in June 2011) another user interface called Unity which is radically different from the conventional desktop environment and has been criticized as having various flaws[38] and lacking configurability.[39] The motivation was a single desktop environment for desktops and tablets,[citation needed] although as of November 2012 Unity has yet to be used widely in tablets. However, the smartphone and tablet version of Ubuntu and its Unity interface was unveiled by Canonical Ltd in January 2013. In April 2017, Canonical canceled the phone-based Ubuntu Touch project entirely in order to focus on IoT projects such as Ubuntu Core.[40] In April 2017, Canonical dropped Unity and began to use GNOME for the Ubuntu releases from 17.10 onward.[41]
"Linux is obsolete"
[edit]In 1992, Andrew S. Tanenbaum, recognized computer scientist and author of the Minix microkernel system, wrote a Usenet article on the newsgroup comp.os.minix with the title "Linux is obsolete",[42] which marked the beginning of a famous debate about the structure of the then-recent Linux kernel. Among the most significant criticisms were that:
- The kernel was monolithic and thus old-fashioned.
- The lack of portability, due to the use of exclusive features of the Intel 386 processor. "Writing a new operating system that is closely tied to any particular piece of hardware, especially a weird one like the Intel line, is basically wrong."[43]
- There was no strict control of the source code by any individual person.[44]
- Linux employed a set of features which were useless (Tanenbaum believed that multithreaded file systems were simply a "performance hack").[45]
Tanenbaum's prediction that Linux would become outdated within a few years and replaced by GNU Hurd (which he considered to be more modern) proved incorrect. Linux has been ported to all major platforms and its open development model has led to an exemplary pace of development. In contrast, GNU Hurd has not yet reached the level of stability that would allow it to be used on a production server.[46] His dismissal of the Intel line of 386 processors as 'weird' has also proven short-sighted, as the x86 series of processors and the Intel Corporation would later become near ubiquitous in personal computers and servers.
In his unpublished book Samizdat, Kenneth Brown claims that Torvalds illegally copied code from MINIX. In May 2004, these claims were refuted by Tanenbaum, the author of MINIX:[47]
[Brown] wanted to go on about the ownership issue, but he was also trying to avoid telling me what his real purpose was, so he didn't phrase his questions very well. Finally he asked me if I thought Linus wrote Linux. I said that to the best of my knowledge, Linus wrote the whole kernel himself, but after it was released, other people began improving the kernel, which was very primitive initially, and adding new software to the system—essentially the same development model as MINIX. Then he began to focus on this, with questions like: "Didn't he steal pieces of MINIX without permission." I told him that MINIX had clearly had a huge influence on Linux in many ways, from the layout of the file system to the names in the source tree, but I didn't think Linus had used any of my code.
The book's claims, methodology and references were seriously questioned and in the end it was never released and was delisted from the distributor's site.
Microsoft competition and collaboration
[edit]Although Torvalds has said that Microsoft's feeling threatened by Linux in the past was of no consequence to him, the Microsoft and Linux camps had a number of antagonistic interactions between 1997 and 2001. This became quite clear for the first time in 1998, when the first Halloween document was brought to light by Eric S. Raymond. This was a short essay by a Microsoft developer that sought to lay out the threats posed to Microsoft by free software and identified strategies to counter these perceived threats.[48] It went on to include a comparison between Windows NT Server and Linux called "Linux Myths" on Microsoft's website in October 1999.[49]
Competition entered a new phase in the beginning of 2004, when Microsoft published results from customer case studies evaluating the use of Windows vs. Linux under the name "Get the Facts" on its own web page. Based on inquiries, research analysts, and some Microsoft sponsored investigations, the case studies claimed that enterprise use of Linux on servers compared unfavorably to the use of Windows in terms of reliability, security, and total cost of ownership.[50]
In response, commercial Linux distributors produced their own studies, surveys and testimonials to counter Microsoft's campaign. Novell's web-based campaign at the end of 2004 was entitled "Unbending the truth" and sought to outline the advantages as well as dispelling the widely publicized legal liabilities of Linux deployment (particularly in light of the SCO v IBM case). Novell particularly referenced the Microsoft studies in many points. IBM also published a series of studies under the title "The Linux at IBM competitive advantage" to again parry Microsoft's campaign. Red Hat had a campaign called "Truth Happens" aimed at letting the performance of the product speak for itself, rather than advertising the product by studies.[citation needed]
In the autumn of 2006, Novell and Microsoft announced an agreement to co-operate on software interoperability and patent protection.[51] This included an agreement that customers of either Novell or Microsoft may not be sued by the other company for patent infringement. This patent protection was also expanded to non-commercial free software developers. The last part was criticized because it only included non-commercial free software developers, and not commercial software developers, or closed software developers.
In July 2009, Microsoft submitted 22,000 lines of source code to the Linux kernel under the GPLV2 license in order to better support being a guest for Windows Virtual PC/Hyper-V, which were subsequently accepted. Although this has been referred to as "a historic move" and as a possible bellwether of an improvement in Microsoft's corporate attitudes toward Linux and open-source software, the decision was not altogether altruistic, as it promised to lead to significant competitive advantages for Microsoft and avoided legal action against Microsoft. Microsoft was actually compelled to make the code contribution when Vyatta principal engineer and Linux contributor Stephen Hemminger discovered that Microsoft had incorporated a Hyper-V network driver, with GPL-licensed open source components, statically linked to closed-source binaries in contravention of the GPL licence. Microsoft contributed the drivers to rectify the licence violation, although the company attempted to portray it as a charitable act, rather than one to avoid legal action against it. In the past Microsoft had termed Linux a "cancer" and "communist".[52][53][54][55][56]
By 2011, Microsoft had become the 17th largest contributor to the Linux kernel.[57] As of February 2015, Microsoft was no longer among the top 30 contributing sponsor companies.[2]: 10–12
The Windows Azure project was announced in 2008 and renamed to Microsoft Azure. It incorporates Linux as part of its suite of server-based software applications. In August 2018, SUSE created a Linux kernel specifically tailored to the cloud computing applications under the Microsoft Azure project umbrella. Speaking about the kernel port, a Microsoft representative said "The new Azure-tuned kernel allows those customers to quickly take advantage of new Azure services such as Accelerated Networking with SR-IOV."[58]
In recent years, Torvalds has expressed a neutral to friendly attitude towards Microsoft following the company's new embrace of open source software and collaboration with the Linux community. "The whole anti-Microsoft thing was sometimes funny as a joke, but not really." said Torvalds in an interview with ZDNet. "Today, they're actually much friendlier. I talk to Microsoft engineers at various conferences, and I feel like, yes, they have changed, and the engineers are happy. And they're like really happy working on Linux. So I completely dismissed all the anti-Microsoft stuff."[59]
In May 2023, Microsoft publicly released their Azure Linux distribution.[60]
SCO
[edit]In March 2003, the SCO Group accused IBM of violating their copyright on UNIX by transferring code from UNIX to Linux. SCO claims ownership of the copyrights on UNIX and a lawsuit was filed against IBM. Red Hat has counter-sued and SCO has since filed other related lawsuits. At the same time as their lawsuit, SCO began selling Linux licenses to users who did not want to risk a possible complaint on the part of SCO. Since Novell also claimed the copyrights to UNIX, it filed suit against SCO.
In early 2007, SCO filed the specific details of a purported copyright infringement. Despite previous claims that SCO was the rightful copyright holder of 1 million lines of code, they specified only 326 lines of code, most of which were uncopyrightable.[61] In August 2007, the court in the Novell case ruled that SCO did not actually hold the Unix copyrights, to begin with,[62] though the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2009 that the question of who held the copyright properly remained for a jury to answer.[63] The jury case was decided on 30 March 2010 in Novell's favour.[64]
SCO has since filed for bankruptcy.[65]
Trademark rights
[edit]In 1994 and 1995, several people from different countries attempted to register the name "Linux" as a trademark. Thereupon requests for royalty payments were issued to several Linux companies, a step with which many developers and users of Linux did not agree. Linus Torvalds clamped down on these companies with help from Linux International and was granted the trademark to the name, which he transferred to Linux International. Protection of the trademark was later administered by a dedicated foundation, the non-profit Linux Mark Institute. In 2000, Linus Torvalds specified the basic rules for the assignment of the licenses. This means that anyone who offers a product or a service with the name Linux must possess a license for it, which can be obtained through a unique purchase.
In June 2005, a new controversy developed over the use of royalties generated from the use of the Linux trademark. The Linux Mark Institute, which represents Linus Torvalds' rights, announced a price increase from 500 to 5,000 dollars for the use of the name. This step was justified as being needed to cover the rising costs of trademark protection.
In response to this increase, the community became displeased, which is why Linus Torvalds made an announcement on 21 August 2005, in order to dissolve the misunderstandings. In an e-mail he described the current situation as well as the background in detail and also dealt with the question of who had to pay license costs:
[...] And let's repeat: somebody who doesn't want to protect that name would never do this. You can call anything "MyLinux", but the downside is that you may have somebody else who did protect himself come along and send you a cease-and-desist letter. Or, if the name ends up showing up in a trademark search that LMI needs to do every once in a while just to protect the trademark (another legal requirement for trademarks), LMI itself might have to send you a cease-and-desist-or-sublicense it letter.
At which point you either rename it to something else, or you sublicense it. See? It's all about whether you need the protection or not, not about whether LMI wants the money or not.
[...] Finally, just to make it clear: not only do I not get a cent of the trademark money, but even LMI (who actually administers the mark) has so far historically always lost money on it. That's not a way to sustain a trademark, so they're trying to at least become self-sufficient, but so far I can tell that lawyers fees to give that protection that commercial companies want have been higher than the license fees. Even pro bono lawyers charge for the time of their costs and paralegals etc.
— Linus Torvalds[66]
The Linux Mark Institute has since begun to offer a free, perpetual worldwide sublicense.[67]
Chronology
[edit]- 1991: The Linux kernel is publicly announced on 25 August by the 21-year-old Finnish student Linus Benedict Torvalds.[18] Version 0.01 is released publicly on 17 September.[68]
- 1992: The Linux kernel is relicensed under the GNU GPL. The first Linux distributions are created.
- 1993: Over 100 developers work on the Linux kernel. With their assistance the kernel is adapted to the GNU environment, which creates a large spectrum of application types for Linux. The oldest currently existing Linux distribution, Slackware, is released for the first time. Later in the same year, the Debian project is established. Today it is the largest community distribution.
- 1994: Torvalds judges all components of the kernel to be fully matured: he releases version 1.0 of Linux. The XFree86 project contributes a graphical user interface (GUI). Commercial Linux distribution makers Red Hat and SUSE publish version 1.0 of their Linux distributions.
- 1995: Linux is ported to the DEC Alpha and to the Sun SPARC. Over the following years it is ported to an ever-greater number of platforms.
- 1996: Version 2.0 of the Linux kernel is released. The kernel can now serve several processors at the same time using symmetric multiprocessing (SMP), and thereby becomes a serious alternative for many companies.
- 1998: Many major companies such as IBM, Compaq and Oracle announce their support for Linux. The Cathedral and the Bazaar is first published as an essay (later as a book), resulting in Netscape publicly releasing the source code to its Netscape Communicator web browser suite. Netscape's actions and crediting of the essay[69] brings Linux's open source development model to the attention of the popular technical press. In addition a group of programmers begins developing the graphical user interface KDE. Linux first appears on the TOP500 list of fastest supercomputers.[70] The ARM port (initiated in 1994[71][72]) is merged.[73]
- 1998: David A. Bader invents the first Linux-based supercomputer using commodity parts.[74]
- 1999: A group of developers begin work on the graphical environment GNOME, destined to become a free replacement for KDE, which at the time, depended on the then proprietary Qt toolkit. During the year IBM announces an extensive project for the support of Linux. Version 2.2 of the Linux kernel is released.
- 2000: Dell announces that it is now the No. 2 provider of Linux-based systems worldwide and the first major manufacturer to offer Linux across its full product line.[75]
- 2001: Version 2.4 of the Linux kernel is released.
- 2002: The media reports that "Microsoft killed Dell Linux"[76]
- 2003: Version 2.6 of the Linux kernel is released.
- 2004: The XFree86 team splits up and joins with the existing X standards body to form the X.Org Foundation, which results in a substantially faster development of the X server for Linux.
- 2005: The project openSUSE begins a free distribution from Novell's community. Also the project OpenOffice.org introduces version 2.0 that then started supporting OASIS OpenDocument standards.
- 2006: Oracle releases its own distribution of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Novell and Microsoft announce cooperation for a better interoperability and mutual patent protection.
- 2007: Dell starts distributing laptops with Ubuntu pre-installed on them.
- 2009: Red Hat's market capitalization equals Sun's, interpreted as a symbolic moment for the "Linux-based economy".[77]
- 2011: Version 3.0 of the Linux kernel is released.
- 2012: The aggregate Linux server market revenue exceeds that of the rest of the Unix market.[78]
- 2013: Google's Linux-based Android claims 75% of the smartphone market share, in terms of the number of phones shipped.[79]
- 2014: Ubuntu claims 22,000,000 users.[80]
- 2015: Version 4.0 of the Linux kernel is released.[81]
- 2017: All of TOP500 list of fastest supercomputers run Linux.[70]
- 2019: Version 5.0 of the Linux kernel is released.[82]
- 2022: Version 6.0 of the Linux kernel is released.[83]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Leemhuis, Thorsten. "Die Neuerungen von Linux 4.15". c't. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved February 21, 2018.
- ^ a b c Corbet, Jonathan; Kroah-Hartman, Greg; McPherson, Amanda. "Linux Kernel Development: How Fast it is Going, Who is Doing It, What They are Doing, and Who is Sponsoring the Work". linuxfoundation.org. January 2018. The Linux Foundation. Archived from the original (lf_pub_whowriteslinux2015.pdf) on March 15, 2015. Retrieved March 15, 2015.
The kernel has grown steadily since its first release in 1991, when there were only about 10,000 lines of code. At almost 19 million lines (up from 17 million), the kernel is almost two million lines larger than it was at the time of the previous version of this paper.
- ^ a b Torvalds, Linus. "COPYING". kernel.org. Archived from the original on December 17, 2015. Retrieved August 13, 2013.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
- ^ a b Linus Torvalds (September 8, 2000). "Linux-2.4.0-test8". lkml.iu.edu. Archived from the original on May 15, 2020. Retrieved November 21, 2015.
The only one of any note that I'd like to point out directly is the clarification in the COPYING file, making it clear that it's only _that_particular version of the GPL that is valid for the kernel. This should not come as any surprise, as that's the same license that has been there since 0.12 or so, but I thought I'd make that explicit
- ^ "Berkeley UNIX and the Birth of Open-Source Software". Archived from the original on March 26, 2015. Retrieved July 28, 2008.
- ^ Marshall Kirk McKusick (March 29, 1999). "Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable". Archived from the original on February 19, 2014.
- ^ Eric, S. Raymond (October 1999). The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. p. 12. ISBN 0-596-00108-8. Archived from the original on July 18, 2022. Retrieved July 21, 2022.
In 1982, a group of Unix hackers from Stanford and Berkeley founded Sun Microsystems on the belief that Unix running on relatively inexpensive 68000-based hardware would prove a winning combination for a wide variety of applications. They were right, and their vision set the pattern for an entire industry. While still priced out of reach of most individuals, workstations were cheap for corporations and universities; networks of them (one to a user) rapidly replaced the older VAXes and other time-sharing systems
- ^ Lazzareschi, Carla (January 31, 1988). "Sun Microsystems Is Blazing a Red-Hot Trail in Computers: $300-Million AT&T; Deal Moves Firm to Set Sights on IBM". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on July 21, 2022. Retrieved July 21, 2022.
- ^ Initial Announcement Archived March 5, 2009, at the Wayback Machine of the GNU Project, 1983
- ^ Corbet, Jonathan (June 30, 2010). "GNU HURD: Altered visions and lost promise (The H)". LWN.net. Retrieved September 29, 2025.
- ^ "Intel Architecure Programming and Information". intel80386.com. Archived from the original on July 6, 2017. Retrieved April 7, 2014.
- ^ Bach, Maurice (1986), The Design of the UNIX Operating System, Prentice Hall, Bibcode:1986duos.book.....B, ISBN 0-13-201799-7
- ^ "Linus Torvalds Introduces Linux 1.0". YouTube. September 14, 2009. Archived from the original on September 26, 2017. Retrieved December 17, 2012.:Video 0:50 min.
- ^ "Linus vs. Tanenbaum debate". Archived from the original on October 3, 2012.
- ^ "The Choice of a GNU Generation - An Interview With Linus Torvalds". Archived from the original on February 25, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2007.
- ^ Torvalds, Linus; Diamond, David (2001). Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary. New York City: HarperCollins. pp. 78–80. ISBN 0-06-662073-2.
- ^ a b c d e Torvalds, Linus; Diamond, David (2001). Just For Fun - The Story Of An Accidental Revolutionary. New York: HarperBusiness. p. 84. ISBN 0-06-662072-4.
- ^ a b Torvalds, Linus Benedict (August 1991). "comp.os.minix". Archived from the original on May 9, 2013. Retrieved September 6, 2009.
- ^ Torvalds, Linus: What would you like to see most in minix? Archived May 15, 2013, at the Wayback Machine Usenet group comp.os.minix, 25 August 1991.
- ^ Torvalds, Linus (March 1994). "Index of /pub/linux/kernel/SillySounds". Archived from the original on October 8, 2009. Retrieved August 3, 2009.
- ^ Silvonen, Jussi (2003). "Linux ja vapaat ohjelmat: haaste informaatiokapitalismille?". In Heiskanen, Jukka; Mäntylä, Jorma (eds.). MarxIT: Informaatiokapitalismin kriittistä tarkastelua (in Finnish). Helsinki: The Finnish Karl Marx Society. p. 120. ISBN 952-99110-0-9.
- ^ a b c Torvalds, Linus: Notes for linux release 0.01 Archived December 10, 2016, at the Wayback Machine kernel.org, 1991.
- ^ Torvalds, Linus (January 5, 1992). "RELEASE NOTES FOR LINUX v0.12". Linux Kernel Archives. Archived from the original on July 21, 2011. Retrieved July 23, 2007.
The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the "you may not distribute it for money" condition. I agree. I propose that the copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU - pending approval of the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no problem for anybody: If you have grievances ("I wrote that code assuming the copyright would stay the same") mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft takes effect as of the first of February. If you do not know the gist of the GNU copyright - read it.
- ^ RELEASE NOTES FOR LINUX v0.95 Archived June 28, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, kernel.org, December 1992
- ^ "Overview of the GNU System - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)". Gnu.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2009. Retrieved April 6, 2012.
- ^ Hiroo Yamagata: The Pragmatist of Free Software, Linus Torvalds Interview Archived 2007-08-26 at the Wayback Machine, 30 September 1997
- ^ James E.J. Bottomley; Mauro Carvalho Chehab; Thomas Gleixner; Christoph Hellwig; Dave Jones; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Tony Luck; Andrew Morton; Trond Myklebust; David Woodhouse (September 15, 2006). "Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 - The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3". LWN.net. Archived from the original on January 18, 2021. Retrieved March 11, 2015.
The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no substantial and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to solve. However, a deeper reading reveals several other problems with the current FSF draft: 5.1 DRM Clauses [...] 5.2 Additional Restrictions Clause [...] 5.3 Patents Provisions [...]since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely.
- ^ Kerner, Sean Michael (January 8, 2008). "Torvalds Still Keen On GPLv2". internetnews.com. Archived from the original on February 12, 2015. Retrieved February 12, 2015.
"In some ways, Linux was the project that really made the split clear between what the FSF is pushing which is very different from what open source and Linux has always been about, which is more of a technical superiority instead of a – this religious belief in freedom," Torvalds told Zemlin. So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF's goals and the GPL Version 2 pretty closely matches what I think a license should do and so right now, Version 2 is where the kernel is."
- ^ Linus Torvalds says GPL v3 violates everything that GPLv2 stood for Archived May 8, 2018, at the Wayback Machine DebConf 2014, Portland, Oregon (accessed 11 March 2015)
- ^ Williams, Sam; Stallman, Richard M. (2010). Free as in Freedom 2.0 (PDF). GNU Press. p. 151. ISBN 978-0-9831592-1-6. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 3, 2015. Retrieved September 5, 2021.
- ^ Govind, Puru (May 2006). "The "GNU/Linux" and "Linux" Controversy". Archived from the original on February 25, 2009. Retrieved October 26, 2008.
- ^ "New Linux Foundation Launches – Merger of Open Source Development Labs and Free Standards Group" (Press release). The Linux Foundation. January 22, 2007. Archived from the original on July 2, 2007. Retrieved March 26, 2008.
Computing is entering a world dominated by two platforms: Linux and Windows.
- ^ "New Linux Foundation Launches - Merger of Open Source Development Labs and Free Standards Group" (Press release). SAN FRANCISCO and BEAVERTON, Ore.: PR Newswire Association LLC. Linux Foundation. January 22, 2007. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 15, 2015.
- ^ "Linux Foundation Leadership". linuxfoundation.org. The Linux Foundation. 2015. Archived from the original on December 7, 2015. Retrieved March 15, 2015.
- ^ a b c Byfield B. (2007). KDE vs. GNOME: Is One Better? Archived 2016-03-04 at the Wayback Machine. Datamation.
- ^ Byfield B. (2011). Will GNOME 3.0 Repeat the User Revolt of KDE 4.0? Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Datamation.
- ^ Linus Torvalds dubs GNOME 3 'unholy mess' Archived August 10, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. The Register.
- ^ What's wrong with Unity & how we can fix it Archived August 5, 2014, at the Wayback Machine. OMG Ubuntu.
- ^ Ubuntu Desktop Designers: 'Unity Should Be Configurable' Archived August 8, 2014, at the Wayback Machine. OMG Ubuntu.
- ^ "Growing Ubuntu for cloud and IoT, rather than phone and convergence". Archived from the original on September 6, 2018. Retrieved September 5, 2018.
- ^ Gilbertson, Scott (April 27, 2018). "Leave it to Beaver: Unity is long gone and you're on your GNOME". The Register.
- ^ A. S. Tanenbaum (January 29, 1992). "LINUX is obsolete". Newsgroup: comp.os.minix. Usenet: 12595@star.cs.vu.nl. Archived from the original on May 26, 2013. Retrieved July 16, 2008.
- ^ A. S. Tanenbaum (January 30, 1992). "Re: LINUX is obsolete". Newsgroup: comp.os.minix. Usenet: 12615@star.cs.vu.nl. Archived from the original on May 30, 2013. Retrieved July 16, 2008.
- ^ Tanenbaum, Andy (February 1992). "Re: Unhappy campers". Archived from the original on June 5, 2009. Retrieved October 19, 2008.
- ^ Andrew Tanenbaum, Linus Torvalds and others: Linux is obsolete Usenet post, 29 January 1992
- ^ The GNU Hurd Project Archived April 19, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (May 20, 2004). "Some Notes on the "Who wrote Linux" Kerfuffle, Release 1.5". Archived from the original on November 22, 2012. Retrieved March 15, 2015.
[Linus] didn't write CTSS and he didn't write MULTICS and didn't write UNIX and he didn't write MINIX, but he did write Linux. I think Brown owes a number of us an apology.
- ^ "The Open Source Initiative: Halloween Document 1". www.gnu.org. Archived from the original on October 13, 2019. Retrieved September 5, 2021.
- ^ "Microsoft Clarifies Linux Myths - Slashdot". linux.slashdot.org. October 5, 1999. Retrieved May 27, 2024.
- ^ "Get the Facts". Microsoft. 2004. Archived from the original on April 23, 2006. Retrieved November 24, 2006.
- ^ "Open Letter to Community from Novell". Novell. 2006. Archived from the original on November 25, 2006. Retrieved March 23, 2007.
- ^ John Fontana. "Microsoft stuns Linux world, submits source code to kernel". Network World. Archived from the original on December 2, 2009. Retrieved July 20, 2009.
In an historic move, Microsoft Monday submitted driver source code for inclusion in the Linux kernel under a GPLv2 license. [...] Greg Kroah-Hartman, the Linux driver project lead and a Novell fellow, said he accepted 22,000 lines of Microsoft's code at 9 a.m.PST Monday. Kroah-Hartman said the Microsoft code will be available as part of the next Linux public tree release in the next 24 hours. The code will become part of the 2.6.30.1 stable release. [...] Then the whole world will be able to look at the code, he said.
- ^ Paul, Ryan (July 2009). "Microsoft aims at VM market with Linux kernel code offering". Archived from the original on January 6, 2012. Retrieved July 22, 2009.
- ^ Holwerda, Thom (July 2009). "Microsoft's Linux Kernel Code Drop Result of GPL Violation". Retrieved July 23, 2009.
- ^ Microsoft (July 2009). "Microsoft Contributes Linux Drivers to Linux Community". Microsoft. Archived from the original on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 23, 2009.
- ^ Richmond, Gary (August 2009). "Yes Linus, Microsoft hating is a disease. And it's a pandemic". Archived from the original on July 29, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
- ^ Paul, Ryan (April 4, 2012). "Linux kernel in 2011: 15 million total lines of code and Microsoft is a top contributor". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on May 7, 2012. Retrieved April 6, 2012.
- ^ "SUSE and Microsoft give enterprise Linux an Azure tune-up". The Register. Archived from the original on September 6, 2018. Retrieved September 5, 2018.
- ^ Vaughan-Nichols, Steven J. "Linus Torvalds isn't worried about Microsoft taking over Linux". ZDNet. Archived from the original on February 20, 2020. Retrieved February 18, 2020.
- ^ "Microsoft's Azure Linux distro is now generally available • The Register". Archived from the original on June 4, 2023. Retrieved June 4, 2023.>
- ^ Jones, Pamela (March 8, 2007). "Report from the Courthouse March 7 - Part 1 (IBM's Motion for DJ on 10th CC)". Groklaw. Archived from the original on August 7, 2011. Retrieved March 24, 2007.
- ^ Jones, Pamela (August 10, 2007). "Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!". Groklaw. Archived from the original on September 6, 2008. Retrieved August 12, 2007.
- ^ Ryan, Justin (August 26, 2009). "SCO Will Try Again". Linux Journal. Belltown Media, Inc. Archived from the original on August 8, 2020. Retrieved August 30, 2009.
- ^ Harvey, Tom (March 30, 2010). "Jury says Novell owns Unix copyrights". The Salt Lake Tribune. MediaNews Group. Archived from the original on April 29, 2021. Retrieved March 30, 2010.
- ^ "SCO Group files for bankruptcy protection". CNet News.com. September 14, 2007. Archived from the original on October 8, 2008. Retrieved January 14, 2008.
- ^ Linus Torvalds: Linus trademarks Linux?!! Archived August 16, 2013, at the Wayback Machine from the linux-Kernel mailing list, 21 August 2005
- ^ "Linux Mark Institute". Archived from the original on February 13, 2008. Retrieved February 24, 2008.
LMI has restructured its sublicensing program. Our new sublicense agreement is: Free — approved sublicense holders pay no fees; Perpetual — sublicense terminates only in breach of the agreement or when your organization ceases to use its mark; Worldwide — one sublicense covers your use of the mark anywhere in the world
- ^ Torvalds, Linus (17 September 2021) 30 years since the Linux 0.01 release Archived September 20, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Jim Hamerly and Tom Paquin with Susan Walton (January 1999). "Freeing the Source: The Story of Mozilla". Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution (1st ed.). O'Reilly. ISBN 1-56592-582-3.
Frank had done his homework, citing Eric Raymond's paper, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," and talking to people in departments throughout the organization—from engineering to marketing to management.
- ^ a b Linux totally dominates supercomputers Archived November 14, 2017, at the Wayback Machine ZDNet. 2017.
- ^ Andrews, Jeremy. "Interview: Russell King". Kernel Trap. Archived from the original on February 4, 2002. Retrieved August 1, 2022.
- ^ King, Russell. "The History of ARM Linux". ARM Linux. Archived from the original on May 16, 2022. Retrieved August 1, 2022.
- ^ Torvalds, Linus. "The History of Linux in GIT". GitHub.
The 2.1.80 release also contains some initial ARM support
- ^ "David Bader Selected to Receive the 2021 IEEE Computer Society Sidney Fernbach Award". IEEE Computer Society. September 22, 2021. Archived from the original on November 11, 2023. Retrieved October 12, 2023.
- ^ Dell, Michael (15 August 2000), Remarks Putting Linux on the Fast Track - Keynote at the LinuxWorld Expo, San Jose, California, retrieved 2 February 2014 Archived May 15, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Orlowski, Andrew (19 March 2002), Microsoft 'killed Dell Linux' – States Archived July 17, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, The Register, retrieved 3 February 2014
- ^ Asay, Matt (21 January 2009). "Red Hat set to surpass Sun in market capitalization". CNET News. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014. Retrieved 16 February 2014.
- ^ Brodkin, Jon (June 28, 2019). "Linux is king *nix of the data center—but Unix may live on forever". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on December 2, 2017. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
- ^ Whittaker, Zack (May 16, 2013). "Android accounts for 75 percent market share; Windows Phone leapfrogs BlackBerry". ZDNet. Archived from the original on November 29, 2014. Retrieved February 16, 2014.
- ^ Sneddon, Joey-Elijah (March 12, 2014). "Ubuntu Phones to Cost $200 to $400 — Can they be a Success at this Price?". OMG Ubuntu. Archived from the original on November 13, 2017. Retrieved March 15, 2014.
- ^ "Linux_4.0 - Linux Kernel Newbies". kernelnewbies.org. Archived from the original on April 17, 2017. Retrieved January 19, 2017.
- ^ "Linux Kernel 5.0 Released, This is What's New". OMG! Ubuntu!. March 4, 2019. Archived from the original on March 16, 2019. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
- ^ "Linux Kernel 6.0 Released, This is What's New". OMG! Ubuntu!. October 3, 2022. Retrieved October 14, 2022.
External links
[edit]- LINUX's History by Linus Torvalds
- History of Linux by Ragib Hasan
- Changes done in each Linux kernel release (since version 2.5.1)
- Kemp, Juliet (January 2015). "Unix, Linux and how we got where we are today" (PDF). Linux Voice. No. 12. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 9, 2017. Retrieved September 1, 2018.
History of Linux
View on GrokipediaPrecursors and Conceptual Foundations
Unix Heritage and Minix Influence
Unix originated in 1969 at Bell Labs, where Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, along with colleagues, developed it as a multi-user, multitasking operating system initially on a PDP-7 minicomputer.[9][10] Designed for simplicity and portability, Unix emphasized modular design principles, such as hierarchical file systems, pipes for interprocess communication, and a shell for command interpretation, which facilitated efficient resource sharing among multiple users.[11] By 1973, the system was rewritten in the C programming language, enhancing its portability across hardware platforms and distinguishing it from assembly-bound contemporaries.[10] Unix evolved through variants that diverged into academic and commercial lineages, notably the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) from the University of California, Berkeley, starting in 1977, which introduced innovations like virtual memory and TCP/IP networking, and AT&T's System V, released commercially in 1983, which standardized features for enterprise use.[10] These branches shared core Unix philosophy—everything as a file, small cooperating programs—but licensing restrictions posed barriers: early Unix source code was distributed under AT&T's proprietary terms, limited by antitrust consent decrees until the 1980s, making full access expensive and legally constrained for non-commercial users.[12] This scarcity of freely modifiable source code incentivized alternatives, as academic and hobbyist communities sought to replicate Unix functionality without proprietary encumbrances, highlighting the causal role of licensing in spurring open Unix-like systems.[10] In 1987, Andrew S. Tanenbaum released Minix, a compact Unix-like operating system crafted as an educational tool to accompany his textbook Operating Systems: Design and Implementation.[13] Minix employed a microkernel architecture, isolating core functions like process management and interprocess communication in a minimal kernel while relegating drivers and servers to user space for enhanced modularity and reliability; it adhered to POSIX standards from version 2.0 onward, ensuring compatibility with Unix APIs.[14] With its full source code publicly available, Minix demonstrated the practicality of developing a functional OS on commodity hardware like the Intel 8086, enabling students and enthusiasts to experiment with kernel modifications and observe trade-offs in design choices.[13] Minix's influence stemmed from its source transparency, which empirically validated the feasibility of hobbyist-led OS development by providing a verifiable, modifiable codebase akin to Unix's modular ethos, though its microkernel imposed performance overheads in benchmarks compared to monolithic alternatives.[15] This architecture's limitations, including slower system calls due to user-kernel context switches, underscored empirical trade-offs between reliability and efficiency, informing subsequent designs that prioritized speed for general-purpose use while retaining Unix-like modularity.[16] Tanenbaum's emphasis on teachable principles over raw performance positioned Minix as a bridge from proprietary Unix to accessible experimentation, directly enabling critiques and extensions that addressed its shortcomings in real-world applicability.[15]Linus Torvalds' Early Motivations
In 1990, while studying computer science at the University of Helsinki, Linus Torvalds encountered Unix during a course on the topic, developing an affinity for its programming interface and seeking a similar environment for personal use.[17] In January 1991, he purchased an Intel 80386 DX33-based PC with 4 MB of RAM and a 40 MB hard disk, initially running MS-DOS before installing Minix, a Unix-like operating system designed for educational purposes by Andrew S. Tanenbaum.[17][18] Torvalds quickly grew frustrated with Minix's limitations on his 80386 hardware, including inadequate support for features like job control, floating-point unit (FPU) operations, and efficient memory management, as well as troublesome patches required for 386 compatibility and restrictive interrupt handling that hindered experimentation.[18][1] These shortcomings, combined with Minix's design priorities as a teaching tool rather than a production system, prevented seamless task-switching tests and driver modifications that Torvalds wished to explore on the processor's protected mode capabilities.[17][19] Motivated by a desire to create a freely modifiable, efficient Unix-like kernel that fully leveraged 386-specific features such as the memory management unit (MMU) and segmentation—outperforming Minix without relying on its code—Torvalds began development in April 1991 as a personal hobby project.[1] On August 25, 1991, he announced the endeavor on the comp.os.minix Usenet group, describing it as a "(free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" targeted at 386/486 AT clones, with initial goals centered on basic functionality rather than full POSIX compliance.[20] By September 1991, he had achieved a bootable kernel (version 0.01), prioritizing empirical testing of core elements like terminal emulation, keyboard input, serial drivers for modem-based news reading, and VGA support over comprehensive standards adherence.[17][1]Inception of the Linux Kernel
Initial Announcement and Development (1991)
On August 25, 1991, Linus Torvalds, a 21-year-old computer science student at the University of Helsinki, announced his ongoing development of a free operating system kernel in a post to the comp.os.minix Usenet newsgroup.[1] The announcement described the project as a hobby effort for Intel 80386 and 80486 AT clones, resembling Minix in directory structure but aiming to overcome its limitations, with Torvalds explicitly seeking feedback on user preferences and dislikes regarding Minix.[1] This initial disclosure marked the public bootstrapping of the kernel, undertaken solo amid Torvalds' academic pursuits.[3] Torvalds had commenced coding in April 1991, producing an initial codebase of approximately 10,000 lines primarily in ANSI C supplemented by Intel 80386 assembly to exploit the processor's protected mode for efficient low-level operations.[21] [22] By late 1991, iterative refinements enabled basic multitasking through custom task-switching mechanisms and rudimentary memory management, addressing core technical hurdles like interrupt handling and process scheduling without external dependencies beyond compilation tools.[3] On September 17, 1991, Torvalds released version 0.01, a minimal prototype verifiable as bootable on compatible hardware, though it omitted networking capabilities and relied on basic ramdisk or Minix-compatible access rather than a native file system.[23] The kernel's compilation necessitated GNU toolchain components, including GCC for generating object code from C sources and Bash for build scripting, underscoring an implicit causal dependence on the pre-existing free software infrastructure despite the project's origins as a standalone endeavor.[1] This reliance facilitated rapid prototyping on Torvalds' 386-based PC, where early iterations debugged assembly-level boot sequences and kernel panics through manual testing and code tweaks, establishing a foundation for subsequent enhancements.[3]First Releases and Community Engagement (1991-1992)
Version 0.01 of the Linux kernel was released by Linus Torvalds on September 17, 1991, consisting of source code for basic task switching and file system support targeted at the Intel 80386 processor, though it was not bootable and required Minix for compilation.[1] This initial release attracted early feedback via email, prompting rapid iterations; version 0.02 followed on October 5, 1991, incorporating support for GNU tools such as bash, gcc, and make, while still relying on Minix utilities.[1] Subsequent versions, including 0.03 in late October and 0.10 in November, addressed usability issues like buffer cache bugs, building momentum through volunteer beta-testing.[1] By December 19, 1991, version 0.11 achieved self-hosting status, compiling under its own kernel with added features like demand loading, VGA text mode support, and standalone tools such as mkfs and fdisk.[1] The pivotal version 0.12, released on January 5, 1992, marked a stability milestone under 20,000 lines of code, introducing virtual memory via paging and swapping to disk—tested on minimal 2 MB systems—and POSIX job control (including bg, fg, jobs, and kill commands), the latter implemented by Theodore Ts'o.[24][1] Other enhancements included up to eight virtual consoles, pseudo-terminals, and the select system call, primarily contributed by developers like Paul MacDonald.[24] Community engagement accelerated with the launch of the linux-activists mailing list at niksula.hut.fi in December 1991, facilitating coordinated patch submissions via email and distribution through FTP sites like nic.funet.fi and tsx-11.mit.edu.[1] Torvalds personally reviewed and merged contributions from an emerging group of volunteers, including Ts'o and MacDonald, transitioning from solo development to collaborative input that empirically improved reliability.[1] By mid-1992, this influx—yielding hundreds of patches—propelled further releases like version 0.95 in March, which expanded capabilities such as X Window System support, culminating in the robust version 1.0 on March 14, 1994, exceeding 170,000 lines of code after sustained volunteer-driven refinement.[1] These early outcomes refuted doubts about decentralized open-source processes producing viable systems, as volunteer efforts demonstrably enhanced functionality and stability absent formal structure.[1]Kernel Naming Decisions
The Linux kernel's name emerged informally during its inception in late 1990 and early 1991, reflecting Linus Torvalds' pragmatic approach to project identification. Torvalds initially developed the kernel under the working name "Freax," a term he coined as a blend of "free" (denoting its open development), "freak" (acknowledging its unconventional origins), and "x" (a nod to Unix-like systems). This choice aligned with his personal experimentation on a hobby project using Minix as a base.[3] In September 1991, as Torvalds sought to distribute early patches and source code, he uploaded files to the ftp.funet.fi server at the Helsinki University of Technology, managed by administrator Ari Lemmke. Lemmke, disliking "Freax," independently renamed the upload directory to "linux"—a truncation combining Torvalds' first name with "Unix." Torvalds adopted this simpler designation without resistance, as it better suited the project's nascent, non-commercial status and avoided cumbersome alternatives.[3] Torvalds later affirmed this origin in a December 1996 interview, emphasizing that "Linux" served as a neutral, eponymous label prioritizing ease of reference over ideological or descriptive precision; he explicitly rejected more elaborate names that might imply broader agendas, focusing instead on the kernel's technical functionality.[17] This deliberate simplicity in naming sidestepped early entanglements with free software advocacy terminologies, enabling rapid community uptake based on empirical performance rather than branding debates.[17]Licensing Shift and GNU Synergy
Adoption of the GNU General Public License
The initial public releases of the Linux kernel in 1991, beginning with version 0.01 on September 17, utilized a custom license drafted by Linus Torvalds that prohibited commercial use, reflecting an intent to foster non-commercial hobbyist development while restricting proprietary exploitation.[3] This restrictive approach limited broader adoption and integration with other free software components, as it discouraged contributions from entities seeking commercial viability.[25] In early 1992, Torvalds relicensed the kernel under the GNU General Public License version 2 (GPLv2) with the release of version 0.12 on February 7, marking a pivotal shift to copyleft principles that mandated derivative works remain open source and share modifications back with the community.[25] This decision, influenced by the need for compatibility with GNU tools and to encourage reciprocal contributions, was fully implemented by December 13, 1992, with version 0.99 explicitly distributed under GPLv2, enabling viral propagation of improvements.[26] The copyleft mechanism ensured that enhancements, such as bug fixes and architecture ports, were reintegrated, preventing fragmentation and proprietary forks that could stagnate development. The GPL's adoption correlated with accelerated kernel evolution; by 1994, the project had attracted over 100 active developers via public mailing lists, facilitating thousands of code submissions that addressed stability issues and expanded hardware support far beyond what a proprietary model could achieve under Torvalds' solo maintenance.[4] Empirical evidence from release cadences and commit histories demonstrates a causal acceleration in growth, as the license's enforcement of openness lowered barriers to collaboration compared to proprietary alternatives, which historically exhibited slower diffusion due to access restrictions.[25] Critics, including some early hardware vendors, contended that the GPL's copyleft provisions deterred proprietary enhancements by compelling disclosure of interfacing code, potentially hindering specialized driver development for commercial hardware.[27] However, longitudinal data on kernel penetration—evident in its integration into servers and embedded systems by the mid-1990s—indicates a net positive effect, as the license's reciprocity fostered a self-sustaining ecosystem that outweighed initial barriers, contrasting with proprietary kernels' limited third-party innovation.[28]Emergence of the GNU/Linux Debate
In the mid-1990s, the Free Software Foundation (FSF), under Richard Stallman, began advocating for the term "GNU/Linux" to describe operating systems pairing the Linux kernel with GNU userland components, arguing that GNU's libraries, compilers (such as GCC), shell (Bash), and utilities formed the essential bulk of a usable Unix-like system, filling the gap left by the stalled GNU Hurd kernel project initiated in 1983.[29] Stallman's position, formalized in FSF communications from 1996 onward, emphasized ethical recognition of the GNU project's decade-long groundwork toward a complete free operating system, without which the Linux kernel alone—a minimal bootable core handling hardware abstraction and process management—lacked practical usability for general computing.[29] This stance framed the naming as a matter of historical accuracy and philosophical integrity, crediting the collaborative free software ecosystem over isolated kernel development.[29] Linus Torvalds, Linux kernel creator, rejected the "GNU/Linux" compound name, insisting that "Linux" designates the kernel itself and, by extension, any full system built upon it, irrespective of userland origins; he viewed the kernel's modular, community-driven evolution since 1991 as a distinct innovation warranting standalone branding, unencumbered by GNU-specific ideology.[30] Torvalds argued that distributions vary widely—some incorporating GNU tools, others not—and that mandating "GNU" overlooked the kernel's portability and the pragmatic reality of its adoption beyond FSF purview, prioritizing technical merit and user familiarity over comprehensive attribution.[30] Empirical evidence supports the kernel-centric perspective through Linux's proliferation in non-GNU environments: by the early 2000s, the kernel powered embedded devices like routers and IoT systems using lightweight alternatives such as BusyBox for utilities, bypassing GNU's fuller toolchain to minimize footprint in resource-constrained settings.[31] Similarly, Android, launched in 2008, employs the Linux kernel for its core but substitutes GNU components with custom libraries like Bionic (replacing glibc) and Dalvik/ART runtime, enabling billions of mobile deployments without reliance on GNU's userland, thus demonstrating the kernel's viability as an independent foundation.[32] Proponents of "GNU/Linux" highlight the synergy's comprehensiveness—GNU tools enabling the kernel's transformation into deployable desktops and servers, as seen in early distributions like Debian, which adopted the term in 1994 to reflect this integration—but critics note drawbacks, including branding complexity that hindered mainstream recognition and ignored the kernel's success in divergent ecosystems, where "Linux" alone fostered a unified identity tied to Torvalds' leadership rather than GNU's unfinished Hurd vision. The debate persists as a clash between ecosystem-wide credit and innovation-specific nomenclature, with market dominance of "Linux" (evident in its use across supercomputers, servers, and mobiles by 2025) underscoring the practical limits of purity-driven naming.Expansion of Distributions and User Tools (1990s)
Major Early Distributions
One of the earliest complete Linux distributions was Slackware, released on July 16, 1993, by Patrick Volkerding, who modified and repackaged the Softlanding Linux System (SLS) to prioritize simplicity and stability for users transitioning from Unix-like systems.[33] Slackware emphasized minimal dependencies and manual configuration, making it accessible to experienced hobbyists while avoiding automated tools that could introduce complexity or errors.[34] Its design philosophy focused on providing a straightforward base system, which contributed to its rapid adoption as one of the first widely distributed Linux variants available via FTP and early CD-ROM presses by 1994.[35] Debian GNU/Linux emerged shortly after, announced on August 16, 1993, by Ian Murdock, with the project's first public beta (version 0.90) following in late 1993 and emphasizing a community-driven model for free software development.[36] Murdock's vision, sponsored initially by the Free Software Foundation, centered on the Debian Social Contract, a document outlining commitments to software freedom, user priorities, and non-proprietary ideals, which guided volunteer contributions and package management.[37] This framework enabled Debian to integrate the Linux kernel with GNU tools and other open-source components into a cohesive, policy-enforced system, lowering barriers for developers and users seeking reliability without commercial constraints.[38] SUSE Linux, originating from a German company founded on September 2, 1992, by Roland Dyroff, Thomas Fehr, and Hubert Mantel, released its first Linux distribution (S.u.S.E. Linux 1.0) in early 1994, targeting European markets with localized support and YaST configuration tools.[39] As one of the initial commercial efforts outside the U.S., SUSE facilitated internationalization by providing multilingual documentation and hardware compatibility tailored to non-English users, packaging the kernel alongside utilities to create installable systems for broader geographic adoption.[40] Red Hat Linux followed with its first public beta on October 31, 1994 (codenamed "Halloween"), developed by Marc Ewing and later formalized under Red Hat Software, marking an early shift toward structured packaging for potential enterprise use.[41] Version 1.0 arrived in May 1995, bundling the kernel with RPM package management for easier updates and installations, which simplified deployment for non-kernel experts and foreshadowed scalable distributions.[42] These distributions played a pivotal role in expanding Linux accessibility by combining the raw kernel with GNU utilities, bootloaders, and file systems into bootable, user-installable formats, shifting from kernel-only downloads to complete operating systems that required minimal expertise beyond basic hardware setup.[3] By mid-1994, the availability of CD-ROM distributions like Slackware spurred physical media sales through vendors, accelerating adoption from niche academic and hobbyist circles—estimated at thousands of users in 1993—to tens of thousands by 1995 as FTP limitations gave way to affordable optical media.[35] This integration democratized Linux, enabling rapid experimentation and customization without deep programming knowledge, though early versions still demanded command-line proficiency for configuration.Development of Graphical Interfaces
The porting of the X Window System to Linux began in 1992 with the development of XFree86, originating from the X386 server included in X11 Release 5 and adapted for 386-compatible PCs, enabling bitmap graphical displays on early Linux systems.[43] This integration addressed the kernel's initial text-mode limitations but introduced technical hurdles, including frequent kernel panics during intensive X operations and incomplete hardware acceleration support, as contemporary PCs lacked standardized graphics drivers compatible with Linux's open-source model.[44] By 1993, XFree86 had stabilized enough for broader use, yet configuration remained manual and error-prone, contrasting with proprietary systems' automated setup and contributing to Linux's reputation for requiring expert intervention for graphical functionality.[45] These foundations paved the way for full desktop environments, with the KDE project announced on October 14, 1996, by Matthias Ettrich, leveraging the Qt toolkit for its widget-based interface despite Qt's initial Q Public License (QPL), which raised concerns over compatibility with the GPL due to Trolltech's dual proprietary-free model.[46] In response to purity advocates critiquing KDE's reliance on potentially restrictive licensing—prioritizing pragmatic usability over strict open-source conformance—the GNOME project launched in August 1997 by Miguel de Icaza and Federico Mena, utilizing the fully GPL-compatible GTK+ toolkit originally developed for the GIMP image editor.[47][48] The licensing tension exemplified trade-offs: KDE's Qt approach accelerated development by borrowing efficient proprietary-inspired abstractions, while GNOME emphasized ideological consistency, though both faced delays; Qt's relicensing to LGPL in 1999 via the KDE Free Qt Foundation resolved much of the impasse, ensuring ongoing free access.[49] Early graphical interfaces achieved extensibility through modular X protocols, allowing remote rendering and customization, but adoption lagged due to hardware demands exceeding typical 1990s consumer PCs—such as insufficient RAM for smooth compositing and absent plug-and-play graphics acceleration—necessitating kernel tweaks and custom drivers that proprietary vendors like Microsoft optimized earlier.[50] This gap fueled the "Year of the Linux Desktop" meme, originating from optimistic mid-1990s predictions of mass adoption that repeatedly failed amid unmet expectations for seamless consumer experience, as Linux prioritized server stability over desktop polish.[3] Empirical data underscores causal factors: without ecosystem incentives for hardware certification, Linux desktops demanded user troubleshooting, perpetuating a cycle where technical viability clashed with practical usability, though open-source extensibility enabled long-term innovations absent in closed systems.[51]Formation of Core Developer Communities
The development of Linux's core developer communities began with informal online networks shortly after the kernel's initial release. In late 1991 and early 1992, discussions initially occurred on Usenet newsgroups like comp.os.minix, but these proved insufficient for coordinated efforts. By mid-1992, the linux-activists mailing list was established at niksula.hut.fi, serving as the primary forum for developers to share code patches, report bugs, and debate features; subscribers numbered in the dozens initially, focusing on volunteer contributions under Linus Torvalds' oversight.[1][52] This list evolved into more specialized channels, with the linux-kernel mailing list (LKML) emerging around 1993 as a dedicated space for kernel-specific technical discourse, replacing broader activist-oriented threads and enabling structured patch reviews.[53] Participation expanded rapidly due to the meritocratic review process, where Torvalds and early maintainers applied rigorous scrutiny to submissions, accepting only those demonstrating clear technical merit and rejecting others to maintain code quality—a practice that, while accused of fostering an elitist culture by excluding novices, empirically correlated with sustained innovation and low defect rates in early releases. By 1999, active contributors had grown from dozens to hundreds, as evidenced by increasing patch volumes and list traffic, laying the groundwork for scalable collaboration without formal hierarchies.[54] In-person events further solidified these networks, with the inaugural Linux Kongress held in Heidelberg, Germany, on May 14-15, 1994, attracting around 100 developers for presentations on kernel advancements and hardware support, marking the shift from purely virtual coordination to community-building gatherings. Subsequent iterations and supplementary online tools, such as early IRC channels and FTP-based code repositories, amplified this growth, transitioning informal patches into a formalized development rhythm that prioritized empirical testing over consensus-driven decisions.[55]Commercialization and Institutional Backing (Late 1990s-2000s)
Corporate Investments and Endorsements
In the late 1990s, initial public offerings of Linux-focused companies underscored growing commercial interest driven by the operating system's potential for cost-effective server deployments and scalable enterprise applications. Red Hat, the first major open-source software firm to go public, launched its IPO on August 11, 1999, with shares priced at $14 tripling to close at $52.06, reflecting investor confidence in Linux's viability for business models centered on support services rather than proprietary licensing. Similarly, VA Linux Systems achieved a record-breaking IPO on December 9, 1999, with shares surging 698% from an initial $30 to close at $239.38, fueled by demand for Linux hardware and software amid the dot-com boom's emphasis on high-performance web infrastructure.[56][57] Major corporations soon followed with strategic endorsements and investments, prioritizing Linux's economic advantages over ideological commitments to open-source purity. IBM, after partnering with Red Hat in February 1999 to support Linux on its hardware, committed approximately $1 billion to Linux development by December 2000, deploying over 1,500 engineers to enhance kernel compatibility with enterprise systems like mainframes and servers. Hewlett-Packard signaled early backing in 1999 through Linux certification on its servers and speculation of de-emphasizing its proprietary HP-UX in favor of Linux for broader compatibility and lower development costs. Oracle began porting its database software to Linux as early as 1998, recognizing the platform's rising traction in data centers for its stability and reduced total ownership expenses compared to commercial Unix variants.[58][59][60][61] These corporate moves catalyzed Linux's server market penetration, with unit shipments expanding 92% from 1998 to 1999—outpacing overall server growth of 23%—as businesses adopted it for its performance in web and database workloads. By the early 2000s, such investments funded professional engineering resources that accelerated kernel hardening and feature integration without compromising core reliability, as demonstrated by sustained adoption rates and minimal regression in stability metrics reported in enterprise deployments. This profit-oriented influx contrasted with prior hobbyist-driven progress, enabling Linux to compete effectively in revenue-generating environments while preserving its merit-based development ethos.[62]Establishment of the Linux Foundation Predecessors
The Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) was established in 2000 as a non-profit consortium backed by technology firms such as IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, and NEC to foster Linux kernel advancement for enterprise and carrier-grade applications without imposing centralized authority.[63] OSDL pooled industry resources to support neutral coordination, including infrastructure for development and testing labs optimized for high-performance Linux workloads.[64] In 2003, OSDL employed Linux kernel creator Linus Torvalds full-time, securing his salary through collective member contributions to enable dedicated focus on kernel maintenance and evolution, thus insulating core development from individual corporate dependencies.[65] This arrangement extended to OSDL's oversight of kernel.org, the central archive for kernel releases, ensuring stable distribution amid growing contributor volumes.[66] Concurrently, the Free Standards Group (FSG), founded in the same year, advanced interoperability via the Linux Standard Base (LSB), with its inaugural 1.0 specification issued on June 29, 2001, defining common interfaces for binaries and scripts to reduce distribution fragmentation.[67][68] These efforts empirically bolstered ecosystem cohesion, as evidenced by sustained kernel adoption in commercial sectors, while mitigating risks of vendor capture through multi-stakeholder governance.[69] Critics occasionally highlighted potential bureaucratic layers in such bodies, yet Linux kernel releases maintained a reliable cadence during the OSDL era—from the 2.4 series in 2001 to the 2.6 transition in 2003, followed by regular minor updates—demonstrating no disruption to innovation velocity.[70] On January 22, 2007, OSDL merged with FSG to create the Linux Foundation, consolidating stewardship functions for ongoing neutral support.[71] This evolution underscored a commitment to collaborative funding that aligned diverse interests toward kernel stability and standards adherence.[72]Architectural and Philosophical Debates
Critiques of Monolithic Kernel Design
In January 1992, Andrew S. Tanenbaum initiated a prominent debate by posting on the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.minix under the subject "LINUX is obsolete," contending that Linux's monolithic kernel architecture—integrating device drivers, file systems, and other services into a single address space—reverted to outdated 1970s designs, complicating debugging, portability, and maintenance compared to microkernel systems like his Minix, which isolate components via message passing for greater modularity.[73] Tanenbaum argued that monolithic kernels amplify the risks of faults propagating across the entire system, predicting microkernels would prevail due to their alignment with emerging distributed computing paradigms and reduced complexity in extending functionality.[74] Linus Torvalds countered that microkernels' reliance on inter-process communication (IPC) imposes measurable performance penalties, such as increased latency from context switches and message serialization, which benchmarks from the era confirmed favored monolithic kernels' direct procedure calls for tasks like system calls and I/O operations.[74] Torvalds emphasized empirical practicality over academic ideals, noting that Linux's design enabled faster development and superior speed in real-world applications, with early tests showing monolithic efficiency in handling high-throughput workloads without the overhead that hampered microkernel prototypes.[74] Proponents of microkernels, including Tanenbaum, maintained advantages in security and reliability, as the minimal kernel core reduces the trusted computing base (TCB)—limiting potential vulnerabilities—and enables formal verification, as later demonstrated by systems like seL4, while isolating driver failures to prevent kernel panics.[75] Monolithic critics also pointed to scalability issues in debugging large codebases, where a single buggy module can destabilize the system, contrasting with microkernels' enforced modularity that facilitates targeted updates.[76] Notwithstanding these critiques, Linux's monolithic approach proved resilient, evidenced by its scalability in demanding environments: by November 2017, Linux powered all 500 systems on the TOP500 list of supercomputers, a dominance sustained through June 2024, attributable to optimized performance in parallel processing and low-overhead resource management that microkernels have struggled to match in general-purpose deployments.[77][78] Loadable kernel modules introduced in Linux 2.0 (1996) mitigated some modularity drawbacks by allowing dynamic extensions without full recompilation, balancing efficiency with flexibility and underscoring how empirical outcomes prioritized speed and ecosystem momentum over purist designs.[76]Leadership and Governance Controversies
Linus Torvalds, the principal maintainer of the Linux kernel, has employed a direct and often profane communication style in public mailing lists, particularly during developer clashes in the 2000s, where he publicly shamed contributors for substandard code submissions using sarcasm and expletives.[79] This approach, while fostering rapid feedback, drew criticism for its intensity, as seen in analyses of kernel mailing list behavior highlighting unnecessary hostility without profanity's necessity for emphasis.[54] In September 2018, amid escalating concerns over his rants, Torvalds announced a sabbatical to address his behavior, issuing a public apology for years of "unprofessional and uncalled for" outbursts directed at developers and committing to personal improvement.[80][81] He returned after several weeks, coinciding with the Linux kernel's adoption of the Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct to promote more inclusive collaboration.[80] Under Torvalds' leadership, the kernel maintained high development velocity, with annual commits stabilizing at 80,000 to 90,000 by the 2010s and early 2020s, reflecting steady growth in contributors despite critiques of toxicity deterring participation.[82][70] Proponents argue this rigor enforces meritocracy, prioritizing code quality and project success over interpersonal niceties, as evidenced by the kernel's expansion and reliability.[83] Critics, however, contend it alienates potential contributors, particularly from underrepresented groups, favoring demands for inclusivity processes; yet empirical metrics of commit volume and maintainer diversity indicate net positive outcomes in velocity and scale.[83][70]Shift to Modern Init Systems
Systemd, initiated in 2010 by Red Hat engineers Lennart Poettering and Kay Sievers, emerged as a successor to the traditional SysV init system, aiming to address limitations in service initialization and management.[84] Designed with influences from systems like Apple's launchd, it introduced parallel service startup, socket and D-Bus activation for on-demand loading, and robust dependency resolution to minimize boot delays and improve reliability in complex environments.[85] Integrated components such as journald provided structured, centralized logging that captured metadata alongside messages, facilitating easier debugging and analysis compared to scattered text logs in prior systems.[86] Major distributions began adopting systemd in the early 2010s, with Fedora implementing it as the default init in version 15 on May 2011, followed by openSUSE and others.[87] By 2015, Ubuntu switched to systemd in version 15.04, replacing Upstart, while Debian endorsed it after internal debates, marking widespread uptake that enabled empirical gains like reduced boot times through parallelization—often achieving under 5 seconds on optimized servers by streamlining service orchestration.[87] [88] The shift provoked significant backlash, dubbed the "systemd wars" peaking around 2014, with critics arguing it exemplified scope creep by consolidating logging, device management, and network configuration into a single suite, diverging from the Unix philosophy of modular tools each handling one task well.[89] Detractors highlighted risks of centralization, including dependency bloat and potential vendor lock-in via Red Hat's influence, alongside binary journal formats that resisted simple text processing tools like grep, complicating forensic analysis.[90] Proponents countered with data on operational efficiencies, such as tighter integration with cgroups for resource control and measurable boot accelerations, substantiating its dominance despite philosophical objections from free software advocates prioritizing modularity over integrated convenience.[91]Legal Conflicts Over Intellectual Property
SCO Group Lawsuits and Code Ownership Claims
In early 2003, The SCO Group, Inc., which had acquired the server business and assets of the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) in 2001 after Novell's 1995 sale of its Unix System V business to SCO (retaining copyrights), publicly asserted exclusive ownership of Unix copyrights and accused contributors to the Linux kernel of incorporating proprietary Unix code without authorization.[92] SCO CEO Darl McBride claimed that Linux contained "hundreds of lines" of allegedly stolen Unix code, later escalating assertions to suggest wholesale copying, though SCO never publicly disclosed comprehensive evidence substantiating broad infringement during the litigation.[93] These claims stemmed from SCO's interpretation of Unix licensing agreements as prohibiting disclosure of source code derivatives to open-source projects like Linux, but empirical analysis in court revealed only isolated, non-proprietary elements traceable to expired patents or public domain influences rather than protected wholesale theft.[94] On March 6, 2003, SCO filed a $1 billion breach-of-contract lawsuit against IBM in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging that IBM violated its System V Unix license by contributing proprietary code, methods, and concepts to Linux between 2000 and 2002.[95] SCO simultaneously issued cease-and-desist letters to approximately 1,500 Linux end-users, demanding licensing fees or cessation of use, positioning Linux as infringing on Unix intellectual property and threatening its viability under the GNU General Public License (GPL).[96] In parallel, SCO sued Novell in 2003 for slander of title after Novell publicly reaffirmed its retention of Unix copyrights under the 1995 asset purchase agreement, which explicitly excluded copyright transfers.[97] U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball ruled on August 10, 2007, that Novell owned the Unix and UnixWare copyrights, rejecting SCO's claims of ownership transfer and affirming that SCO held only a license to use them for SVRx product sales.[92] A jury verdict on March 30, 2010, in the SCO v. Novell trial confirmed Novell's copyright ownership and found no slander by Novell, while SCO failed to prove licensing ambiguities warranted its IP assertions.[98] In the IBM case, courts progressively dismissed SCO's claims: summary judgment in 2014 rejected breach allegations for lack of evidence of unauthorized contributions, and by 2016, further rulings invalidated SCO's contract revocation attempts against IBM's AIX and Linux activities.[99] No court found substantive proof of Unix code copying into Linux sufficient to undermine the GPL's validity or open-source distribution model.[100] The litigation, which persisted through appeals into the 2020s under SCO successors like Xinuos, exhausted SCO's resources—leading to its 2007 bankruptcy filing amid $20 million in annual legal costs—without yielding damages or injunctions against Linux.[101] Final resolutions, including a 2021 appeals court affirmation of IBM's victory, empirically demonstrated the resilience of Linux's development process against unsubstantiated IP aggression, as independent code audits and deposition testimonies uncovered no causal link between alleged Unix leaks and core Linux functionality.[99] SCO's strategy, while highlighting genuine ambiguities in legacy Unix SVRX licenses from the 1980s, ultimately faltered on factual grounds, reinforcing judicial deference to explicit contract terms and open-source licensing integrity over aggressive proprietary assertions.[102]Trademark Enforcement and Disputes
Linus Torvalds secured ownership of the "Linux" trademark in 1997 through a settlement agreement resolving a prior registration dispute, assigning rights from William R. Della Croce Jr. to Torvalds as the kernel's creator.[103] The trademark, originally pursued around 1994, covers the term "Linux" for operating system software and related uses, with Torvalds retaining personal ownership while delegating administration to the Linux Mark Institute (LMI), an entity formed in 2000 to manage protections on his behalf.[104] [105] Enforcement efforts, coordinated by LMI, emphasize preventing consumer confusion over the open-source nature of Linux, such as prohibiting proprietary claims or misleading branding that implies endorsement without compliance with licensing guidelines.[106] By 2005, LMI had issued over 90 warning letters and begun modest licensing fees—starting at $200 annually for small entities—to fund protections without aggressive litigation, focusing instead on education and voluntary compliance.[107] [104] These measures addressed dilution risks from commercial entities, such as vendors bundling closed-source components under the Linux name, thereby preserving the mark's association with verifiable open-source principles and supporting broader ecosystem viability.[105] Perceptions of overreach emerged in the mid-2000s amid initial fee structures and letters, with critics arguing they imposed unnecessary burdens on a community-driven project; however, enforcement remained limited to commercial misuse rather than targeting distributions or non-profits, and no evidence indicates it impeded innovation or adoption, as Linux kernel contributors and derivatives proliferated unchecked during this period.[107] [104] In practice, the strategy avoided stifling effects seen in more litigious open-source disputes, correlating instead with enhanced brand clarity that facilitated corporate investments without eroding the collaborative model.[108]Evolving Dynamics with Microsoft
Initial Hostility and Competitive Pressures
In the late 1990s, Microsoft internally recognized Linux and open-source software as a strategic threat to its dominance in operating systems, as documented in the leaked "Halloween Documents" of 1998, which outlined tactics to undermine open-source development through standards manipulation and interoperability issues.[109] These memos highlighted concerns over Linux's ability to erode Windows' market share by offering a free alternative that could attract developers and enterprises seeking to avoid licensing fees.[110] Microsoft's public hostility intensified in 2001 when CEO Steve Ballmer described Linux as "a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches," criticizing the GNU General Public License (GPL) for its copyleft provisions that require derivative works to remain open-source, potentially forcing proprietary code to disclose source under certain integrations.[111] Ballmer's statement, made in a Chicago Sun-Times interview, reflected Microsoft's view that the GPL's "viral" nature posed risks to intellectual property rights by compelling companies to surrender control over their innovations if combined with GPL-licensed code.[112] Similarly, Microsoft executive Craig Mundie argued in early 2001 that the GPL threatened organizational IP by propagating open-source requirements, contrasting it with more permissive licenses that aligned better with commercial models.[113] To counter Linux's advance, Microsoft launched fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) campaigns emphasizing purported security vulnerabilities and higher total cost of ownership (TCO) for Linux deployments compared to Windows.[114] For instance, Microsoft's "Get the Facts" initiative in the early 2000s claimed Windows offered superior security and easier management, though independent analyses, such as those from cybersecurity firms, often contested these assertions by noting Linux's modular kernel and permission-based architecture reduced exploit surfaces, with fewer reported vulnerabilities per user base in server environments during that period.[115] Microsoft's viewpoint centered on the risks of unvetted open-source code exposing enterprises to unknown IP infringements or backdoors, a concern amplified by partnerships like those with SCO Group to highlight alleged Unix code theft in Linux.[110] Linux's zero software acquisition cost exerted direct pricing pressure on Microsoft, compelling concessions such as volume licensing discounts and bundled offers to enterprises evaluating alternatives in the early 2000s.[116] Studies from that era, including TCO comparisons, demonstrated Linux's lower upfront and long-term expenses—often 30-50% less than Windows equivalents due to absent royalties—prompting Microsoft to adjust strategies like offering free upgrades or reduced fees to OEMs to maintain competitiveness.[117] This economic realism underscored the causal link between open-source availability and proprietary pricing erosion, as free alternatives forced incumbents to commoditize features or absorb margins to retain customers.[118]Transition to Pragmatic Partnerships
In the late 2000s, Microsoft shifted toward collaboration with the Linux ecosystem, exemplified by its submission of over 20,000 lines of code to the Linux kernel in 2009, primarily for Hyper-V drivers to enable Linux guests on Microsoft's virtualization platform.[119] This contribution, licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2, reflected a pragmatic response to Linux's growing dominance in server environments, where cloud economics prioritized interoperability over prior hostilities.[119][120] Key agreements facilitated this détente, including the February 2009 virtualization interoperability pact with Red Hat, which ensured compatibility between Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Windows Server hypervisors, allowing seamless cross-platform deployments.[121] By the mid-2010s, Microsoft extended integration efforts with the March 2016 announcement of the Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL), enabling execution of Linux binaries alongside Windows applications without dual-booting or virtualization overhead.[122] On Azure, Linux virtual machines achieved majority usage by 2017, comprising over 50% of instances and rising further into the 2020s as enterprises favored Linux for cost-effective, scalable workloads.[120] Microsoft's kernel contributions persisted into the 2020s, with engineers submitting patches for Azure-specific optimizations, networking enhancements, and security features, often upstreamed for community benefit.[123] These efforts yielded mutual gains, such as improved Hyper-V performance benefiting Linux distributions broadly, underscoring how market-driven necessities—Linux's 96% share of top web servers and prevalence in cloud infrastructure—eclipsed ideological divides.[123][120] Critics, including open-source advocates, have raised alarms about Microsoft's hiring of kernel maintainers and influence over development priorities, fearing a form of ecosystem capture that could prioritize proprietary interests.[124] However, verifiable outcomes, including sustained upstream acceptance of patches and Linux's unhindered expansion in hybrid environments, indicate that such partnerships have empirically accelerated technical advancements without compromising core open-source principles.[123][119]Widespread Adoption in Key Sectors (2000s-2010s)
Server and Supercomputing Dominance
Linux's penetration into the server market accelerated during the early 2000s, with its share among server operating systems reaching approximately 27% by 2000, up from 25% the prior year, driven by its open-source cost advantages and Unix-like stability appealing to enterprises shifting from proprietary Unix systems.[125] By the 2010s, Linux had become the foundation for hyperscale data centers operated by major providers, enabling massive scalability across thousands of nodes; for instance, Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud predominantly deploy Linux-based virtual machines and bare-metal instances to handle exabyte-scale workloads.[126] This dominance stems from the kernel's efficient resource management and modular architecture, which support horizontal scaling without the licensing overhead of alternatives like Windows Server. In supercomputing, Linux achieved near-total hegemony on the TOP500 list, powering over 95% of entries by 2013 and 100% of the world's fastest 500 supercomputers since November 2017, as verified by biannual benchmarks measuring LINPACK performance.[127] This uniformity reflects Linux's optimizations for parallel processing, such as support for MPI interconnects and low-latency kernels tailored for HPC clusters, outperforming closed-source options in aggregate compute density.[128] While Linux servers excel in uptime—often sustaining 99.99% availability over years due to non-reboot configurations for updates and hot-pluggable components—critics note administrative complexity arises from reliance on command-line interfaces and manual scripting, contrasting with Windows' graphical tools.[129] Empirical comparisons, however, indicate Linux's lower total cost of ownership in large-scale deployments, as its stability reduces downtime incidents verifiable through metrics like mean time between failures in production environments.[130]Embedded Systems and Mobile Integration
Linux's adoption in embedded systems accelerated in the early 2000s, driven by the availability of low-cost 32-bit system-on-chip processors and the kernel's modularity, which allowed tailoring for resource-constrained devices like routers and set-top boxes.[131] Projects such as OpenWrt, founded in January 2004 based on Linksys WRT54G firmware sources, enabled widespread customization of consumer routers, replacing proprietary software with Linux-based firmware supporting advanced networking features.[132] By the mid-2000s, Linux powered an increasing share of digital video recorders, smart TVs, and IoT prototypes, with vendors leveraging distributions like uClinux for microcontrollers lacking memory management units.[133] These integrations emphasized kernel optimizations for real-time response and low footprint, contributing to Linux's dominance in non-PC embedded markets where stability and open-source extensibility outweighed desktop-oriented features.[134] The most significant expansion occurred with mobile devices through Android, launched commercially on September 23, 2008, as an open-source platform built atop a modified Linux kernel version 2.6.[135] Google, via the Open Handset Alliance, adapted the kernel for ARM architectures prevalent in smartphones, incorporating custom schedulers, wakelocks for power management, and low-memory killer mechanisms to prioritize battery efficiency over traditional desktop workloads.[136] These modifications enabled dynamic voltage scaling and interrupt handling tuned for intermittent CPU usage, reducing power draw in idle states compared to unmodified kernels.[137] By 2025, Android powered over 3.5 billion active devices worldwide, representing approximately 70-75% of the global smartphone market and extending to tablets, wearables, and automotive systems.[138] Despite this scale, Android's kernel divergences sparked debates within the Linux community. Google historically maintained long-term support branches with proprietary additions, contributing selectively to upstream while forking for device-specific needs, leading to criticisms of insufficient reintegration—such as in 2010 when kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman noted the removal of Android-specific code from mainline due to unmerged changes.[139] Proponents highlight Android's role in propagating Linux to billions, amplifying its ecosystem influence, while purists argue it deviates from "true" Linux distributions by omitting GNU userland tools and prioritizing closed-source extensions, thus diluting upstream coherence.[140] Efforts to upstream more Android features intensified post-2021 with Google's "upstream first" policy, yet vendor fragmentation persists, complicating security patches and mainline alignment.[141]Enterprise and Cloud Infrastructure Growth
The integration of virtualization technologies into the Linux kernel facilitated its expansion into enterprise data centers and cloud environments during the late 2000s. The Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM), a type-1 hypervisor module, was announced in October 2006 and merged into Linux kernel version 2.6.20, released on February 5, 2007, enabling efficient hardware-assisted virtualization directly within the kernel.[142] This allowed Linux distributions to serve as robust hypervisors, powering virtual machine hosts for enterprise workloads and reducing dependency on proprietary alternatives like VMware. Concurrently, Amazon Web Services launched Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) in 2006, offering Linux-based virtual instances that quickly became a staple for scalable computing, with early adopters leveraging Linux for its stability and customizability in cloud deployments.[143] The 2010s saw a surge in containerization, building on Linux kernel primitives to enable lightweight, scalable infrastructure. Control groups (cgroups), initially developed by Google engineers starting in 2006 and merged into kernel version 2.6.24 in January 2008, provided resource limiting and accounting for processes, while namespaces— with key implementations like mount namespaces dating to 2002 and fuller support by 2.6.24—isolated process environments.[144][145] These features underpinned early container tools like Linux Containers (LXC) and culminated in Docker's open-source release in March 2013, which popularized container orchestration by simplifying image packaging and deployment atop these kernel capabilities.[146] OpenStack, an open-source cloud platform launched on October 21, 2010, further accelerated Linux's role in private and hybrid clouds, integrating with distributions like Red Hat Enterprise Linux to manage infrastructure at scale.[147] Empirical data underscores Linux's dominance in cloud infrastructure, driven by lower total cost of ownership compared to proprietary systems. A 2010 Linux Foundation survey of enterprise users found 70.3% employing Linux as their primary cloud platform, citing cost reductions from avoiding vendor licensing fees.[148] By the mid-2010s, studies estimated significant savings; for instance, organizations using Red Hat Enterprise Linux realized $6.8 billion in aggregate cost reductions in 2019 alone through decreased operational expenses and enhanced efficiency.[149] An economic analysis of public sector adoption highlighted Linux's advantages in minimizing licensing and maintenance costs while maintaining performance parity with Unix variants.[150] Although critiques of cloud provider lock-in persist, Linux's portability across platforms like AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud—facilitated by standardized kernel features—enables multi-cloud strategies, with surveys indicating over 60% of enterprises using Linux for hybrid deployments by the late 2010s to mitigate single-vendor risks.[148] This flexibility, rooted in open-source governance, has empirically sustained adoption amid rising workloads, as containerized applications on Linux reduced deployment times and resource overhead by factors of 10 or more in benchmarks.[146]Contemporary Kernel Advancements (2010s-2025)
Major Version Milestones and Technical Innovations
The Linux kernel 3.0 was released on July 21, 2011, marking a shift from the incremental 2.6.x numbering to a simpler major-minor scheme, primarily to commemorate the project's approximate 20-year milestone without introducing disruptive changes to the application binary interface (ABI).[151] This version incorporated hardware-driven enhancements, such as improved Btrfs filesystem data scrubbing for better data integrity on emerging storage technologies, reflecting adaptations to increasing storage capacities and reliability demands in server environments.[151] Subsequent 3.x releases through the decade sustained development momentum, with empirical optimizations in the Completely Fair Scheduler (CFS) yielding measurable reductions in latency for multi-core systems, as hardware proliferation of cores from vendors like Intel and AMD necessitated finer-grained task distribution to prevent bottlenecks observed in prior architectures.[152] Kernel 5.0 arrived on March 3, 2019, advancing the versioning after the 4.20 release to avoid interpretive numbering distractions, while embedding energy-aware scheduling that prioritizes power-efficient core selection on heterogeneous processors, delivering up to 10-15% improvements in battery life for mobile-derived workloads under controlled benchmarks.[153] This release underscored causal responses to hardware evolution, including NVMe SSD proliferation, through I/O scheduler tweaks like enhanced multi-queue handling in the blk-mq framework, which reduced queue depths and boosted throughput by minimizing context switches in high-IOPS scenarios.[153] Such gains refuted narratives of kernel stagnation, as real-world metrics from supercomputing deployments showed sustained scalability amid rising parallelism in CPUs and storage.[152] The 6.x series, commencing with 6.0 in October 2022, accelerated innovation amid escalating hardware complexity, culminating in 6.17 released on September 28, 2025, which integrated initial support for Intel's Advanced Performance Extensions (APX) to leverage expanded register sets for reduced spills in compute-intensive tasks.[154][155] Earlier in the series, vector extensions for architectures like RISC-V gained maturity, enabling SIMD operations that enhanced vectorized workloads in scientific computing by factors of 2-4x on compatible hardware.[156] Rust module support, experimentally merged starting in 6.1 (December 2022), introduced memory-safe drivers to mitigate classes of bugs prevalent in C code, with progressive expansions in subsequent releases demonstrating compile-time error reductions without runtime overhead penalties.[157] These developments, driven by empirical needs from cloud-scale I/O patterns and scheduler refinements for asymmetric cores, evidenced ongoing evolution: for instance, 6.x I/O enhancements via hardware feedback interfaces improved SSD write amplification handling, yielding 20-30% latency drops in enterprise traces.[154][158]| Version | Release Date | Key Technical Drivers |
|---|---|---|
| 3.0 | July 21, 2011 | Versioning simplification; Btrfs integrity features for denser storage.[151] |
| 5.0 | March 3, 2019 | Energy-aware CFS; blk-mq I/O scaling for NVMe.[153] |
| 6.17 | September 28, 2025 | APX register extensions; Rust safety expansions; vector perf for ARM/Intel.[154][155] |
