After takin' a swig o' grog, John B slocomb belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> Which is what makes me wonder about people that appear to be arguing
> that Linus created an entirely new and original system. He didn't and
> certainly he never claimed that he did.
> In fact that Linux was built on the foundation of a previous
> successful system is simply "good engineering". Nobody that is
> competent sets out to design anything without researching the
> literature to see what has been built before and what problems were
> encounter. Only after you know what has gone before can you really
> build something "better".
As I understand it, though, Linus has learned an awful lot along the way
about the "right" way to do things, from people who know other UNIXen,
and he's had his share of "beat-downs" (e.g. the Mindcraft benchmarks,
which ultimately spurred the kernel developers on to serious improvements.
> Rather then be so defensive about Linux I would have thought people
> would be bragging about this system, created by an unknown
> under-graduate, in an unknown school, that has become an
> internationally recognized and accepted system, even making inroads,
> in some instances, into what was in the past the sole domain of the
> largest software company in the world.
Who's defensive? Clarity is merely sought.
Artistic ventures highlighted. Rob a museum.