Basically the title

16 points
*

Things just weren’t like that then. Otherwise all PC peripherals would be locked down too, so no device drivers. That was already a problem with cheap windows crap. But the better stuff was documented.

Maybe there would be no Linux but that isn’t as bad as it sounds, since BSD Unix was being pried loose at the time, plus there were other kernels that had potential. And the consumer PCs we use now weren’t really foreseen. We expected to run on workstation class hardware that was more serious (though more expensive) than PCs were at the time. They would have stayed less locked down.

Asded: PCs were an interesting target because there was a de facto open hardware standard, making the “PC compatible” industry possible. So again, without that, we would have used different hardware.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

Valid question. You can ask this about many things:

Would the Internet as we know it exist if Facebook, AOL, and Yahoo had united to create a walled garden?

Would Macbooks as we know them today exist without an open source ecosystem? Would the company Appke exist? Would there be an iPhone?

Would the web exist without Linux? Both developed at the same time, 1991 till now, and most stuff runs on Linux servers.

Would the people who build all the hardware and software even be interested in computers had they not played with (build) computers in the 90ies? What if we had given them an iPad aith CandyCrush that just works; and not BIOS codes, cables, extension cards and drivers?

permalink
report
reply
20 points

What if we had given them an iPad aith CandyCrush that just works

We’ll know the answer in just a few more years here. Whole generation growing up that way currently.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

On the “web without Linux”, I imagine it probably would have been scattered across a few proprietary Nixes until FreeBSD emerged from the AT&T lawsuit, upon which FreeBSD would have become the dominant web server.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Seconding that’s a not-how-things-were.

The lovely thing with legacy architectures (6502, 68k, x86, z80, etc.) that were in use during that time is that they were very very simple: all you needed to do was put executable code on a ROM at the correct memory address, and the system would boot it.

There wasn’t anything required other than making sure the code was where the CPU would go looking for it, and then it’d handle it from there.

Sure, booting an OS meant that you needed whatever booted the CPU to then chain into the OS bootloader and provide all the things the OS was expecting (BIOS functions, etc.) but the actual bootstrap from ‘off’ to ‘running code’ was literally just an EPROM burner away.

It’s a lot more complicated now, but users would, for the most part, not tolerate removing the ability to boot any OS they feel like, so there’s enough pressure that locked shit won’t migrate down to all consumer hardware.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

There was still real competition in the x86 OS space back then, also. Like IBM had OS/2 and DOS 7, and made hardware, so they certainly wouldn’t want it locked to a Microsoft OS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

competition in the x86 OS space back then

Oh yeah: there were a stuuuupid amount of OSes.

On the DOS side you had MS, IBM, and Digital Research.

You also had a bunch of commercial UNIXes: NextStep, Solaris, Xenix/SCO, etc. along with Linux and a variety of BSDs. There were also a ton of Sys4/5 implementations that were single-vendor specific so they could sell their hardware (which was x86 and not something more exotic) that have vanished to time because that business model only worked for a couple of years, if that.

There was of course two different Windows (NT, 9x), OS/2 which of course could also run (some) Windows apps, and a whole host of oddballs like QNX and BeOS and Plan9 or even CP/M86.

It was a lot less of a stodgy Linux-or-Windows monoculture, and I miss it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I ran OS/2 Warp as my primary for like a year, I loved it, and it could even play many Windows/DOS games with fiddling

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

but users would, for the most part, not tolerate removing the ability to boot any OS they feel like, so there’s enough pressure that locked shit won’t migrate down to all consumer hardware.

what makes you think that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The same reason people who drive 20 miles a day have worries about range on an EV that’ll do 300, or why people espouse the freedom of Android but then use the default Google apps.

People like the option of choice, even if they’re not necessarily ever going to engage in making a different one.

If there are two options for a computer, one is “will run everything” and the other is “will only run Windows” a good portion of people are still going to pick the first, even though very few of them will ever do anything else, simply because people really really like having the option of choice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I don’t think they even know that there’s a possible choice. Common people don’t understand computers, not at this level.

Cars is a good example for another reason. Do we have new cars without a built-in internet connection and continuous user (and environment) tracking, and questionable remote control functions? Afaik we don’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I wonder what the newest PC motherboard with the BIOS ROM in a socketed DIP chip is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

At least a decade old, if not more than.

If you wanted to swap your vendor EFI image to something else, at this point it’s all going to be via a SPI programmer, and if you own one of the two boards that it supports, coreboot/openboot.

But, essentially, you can’t swap because there’s very little supported hardware, and thus are stuck with your vendor proprietary EFI.

What’s hilarious, I guess? is that the EFI setup is more or less it’s own OS that can then chainboot an OS which is how the mid90s workstations (Sun, SGI, HP, etc.) worked.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

I think you’re forgetting where Linux was the most successful by far: Servers and Android. Server guys do what they want, if you tell them they can only use software you allow them to, they will laugh at you and buy their data center elsewhere. Android has had locked bootloaders forever (I actually think even my very first phone had one).

So maybe development would have been harder? I mean, we don’t have looked bootloaders on desktop even today, not really locked at least, so it’s hard to tell. Linux’s main audience would not have cared I think.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

Early Android (circa 2009) didn’t have locked bootloaders.

Google wanted people to experiment, which was basically free research for them. Pixel’s today are unlocked when purchased from Google.

Even my earliest Verizon phones weren’t bootloader locked - they didn’t start doing that for a few years (my last Verizon phone in 2012 wasn’t bootloader locked). And Verizon is arguably the worst vendor when it comes to bootloader locked phones.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

locked bootloaders are still a thing mostly on the US.

over here having them locked is the exception, not the norm.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

What? At least two years ago, all had locked bootloaders and half of the vendors wouldn’t let you unlock it. “Here” being central europe.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Google wanted people to experiment, which was basically free research for them.

Embrace, … you know the rest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
145 points

You should go read Microsoft’s attempt at excluding Linux/Unix from running on x86 using ACPI!

https://web.archive.org/web/20070202174648/http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf

permalink
report
reply
27 points

Btw, in the end, they did this with their office format.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

Browser too, and the whole activeX, and DirectX api system to practically force windows only development.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Yeah, same with gaming until Proton came along

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Unix also including mac and bsds?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

BSDs mostly, Mac wasn’t a Unix based system at the time. It also didn’t run on x86.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Ohh

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

@wildbus8979 @Mwa MacOS was Unix based after Steve Jobs created the Mach/Unix/Mac Finder stack for use on the Next computer, as soon as he returned to Apple, it was adopted there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

@Mwa @wildbus8979 Yes, early on there was AT&T and Berkley, System-V became AT&T’s mainstream though there were off-shoots like CB-Unix for PDP11/70’s which only had 64k I+D space, and Berkeley had 4.2 and 4.3BSD, and now you have offshoots of those, such as FreeBSD and NETBSD, MacOS is a highly mutilated BSD sitting atop a Mach micro-kernel with the Mac finder sitting on top of the whole mess. The Mach microkernel provides a layer of hardware abstraction that makes it easy to jump between architectures as Mac has often done. What I do not like about MacOS is that they include only drivers necessary for their hardware and forbid the use on Non-Mac’s by license. This limits your selection of things like video cards to those they specifically chose to use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Ohh yeah locked down unix like the one used in game consoles like Playstation and Nintendo switch (these consoles are very very locked down no terminal or anything) and macos (less locked down) as well atleast macos you can install outside of the appstore which I HATED on ios and iPados

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

:O The Archive! It’s back online!! WOOOOO

permalink
report
parent
reply

Linux

!linux@lemmy.ml

Create post

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word “Linux” in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

  • Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
  • No misinformation
  • No NSFW content
  • No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

Community stats

  • 8.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.7K

    Posts

  • 47K

    Comments