From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Is MINIX much better than LINUX?
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:55:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.162027.1604@frmug.fr.mugnet.org> archer@frmug.fr.mugnet.org (Vincent Archer) writes:
>
>So buy, buy more. I thought that the whole point of Linux was that it was
>free? I'll have to spend $150 to buy a 386 board. Ok. Then what?

No, the whole point of linux isn't that it's free, and never has been. 
It's one of the points that come up most regularly, as it's certainly
something that gets the attention of most people.  It's also one thing I
stressed in the "linux is obsolete" flamewar, as it's one thing I think
minix *should* have had as one of it's main points due to being meant
for studies. 

In fact, if you want to, you can pay for your linux installation: there
are at least two CD-roms available already which contain linux sources,
and a third one seems to be in the making.  Also, SLS in Canada sells
linux on floppies.  I'm not getting any money on them, but that doesn't
mean they are giving linux away for no cost.  And I don't mind, because
'free' wasn't the whole point, just a big plus. 

The *point* with linux is that I didn't have a good OS on my machine (I
had DOS and minix, and my definition of good is obviously different from
ast's), so I wrote one.  Making it freely available was a separate
decision not directly connected with the conception of it, and one that
paid off handsomely: thanks to that it's now a lot better system than it
would otherwise have been.  It resulted both in me getting good feedback
and testing for the system, as well as actual patches to make it run
better: both the SCSI code, the networking code and the new and improved
math-emulator have been totally written by others. 

So while you can get linux for free, the real reason you'd want to
actually *use* (and even pay for it) it is that it's a pretty good
unix-like OS.  After all, even a free program is no better than what it
does or gives you. 

>I've never used a 386. I'll never use one, unless you put a gun on my head
>(then I'll do everything you say. And shoot you in the back at the first
> occasion).

You are missing out on something.  I programmed a 68k machine before
getting a PC, and yes, I was a bit worried about the intel architecture. 
It turned out to be ok, and more importantly: it's the cheapest thing
around.  A 386 in protected mode is in fact a very pleasant processor,
and while it could do with some more registers (at least double the
current number), there are no major problems with it. 

The worst part of a PC-compatible is the BIOS and DOS, and I no longer
have to care about them.  Even the much maligned ISA bus is pretty good:
it may not be technically superior, but it does what a bus is supposed
to do very well: hook up hardware.  A lot of hardware. 

It's not even too hateful to program in assembly, and when you program
it in C, it looks like any other 32-bit computer.  Except for being a
lot cheaper than anything else that fast...  Not to say I wouldn't like
a Mac or an Amiga, but it's certainly a bad idea not to even consider a
386 now that there are good alternatives to MS-DOS around (and no, I'm
not necessarily talking linux). 

		Linus
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix