If Linux is only a kernel, then how were its first versions used (without distribution)?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
104
down vote

favorite
24












Linux is only a kernel, and if users want to use it, then they need a complete distribution. That being said, how were the first versions of Linux used when there were no Linux distributions?







share|improve this question

















  • 66




    The premise of your question is flawed. You don't need a distribution to use Linux. You need the Linux kernel, and some userland code. That's it. A "distribution" is simply what we call it when someone else puts them together for you, instead of you doing it yourself.
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Aug 7 at 23:29






  • 9




    In reality, in the beggining was more a chicken-and-egg problem, for the lack of decent specific user land tools. Once the guy behind MCC Interim Linux cracked that egg, and wrote several tools himself, at least fdisk, the door was open for others to put forward their own Linux setup more easily.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 8 at 0:10







  • 8




    Revolution OS - movie about GNU/Linux history (English subtitle)
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:08







  • 5




    The Origins of Linux—Linus Torvalds
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:10






  • 5




    Aalto Talk with Linus Torvalds [Full-length]
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:15















up vote
104
down vote

favorite
24












Linux is only a kernel, and if users want to use it, then they need a complete distribution. That being said, how were the first versions of Linux used when there were no Linux distributions?







share|improve this question

















  • 66




    The premise of your question is flawed. You don't need a distribution to use Linux. You need the Linux kernel, and some userland code. That's it. A "distribution" is simply what we call it when someone else puts them together for you, instead of you doing it yourself.
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Aug 7 at 23:29






  • 9




    In reality, in the beggining was more a chicken-and-egg problem, for the lack of decent specific user land tools. Once the guy behind MCC Interim Linux cracked that egg, and wrote several tools himself, at least fdisk, the door was open for others to put forward their own Linux setup more easily.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 8 at 0:10







  • 8




    Revolution OS - movie about GNU/Linux history (English subtitle)
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:08







  • 5




    The Origins of Linux—Linus Torvalds
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:10






  • 5




    Aalto Talk with Linus Torvalds [Full-length]
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:15













up vote
104
down vote

favorite
24









up vote
104
down vote

favorite
24






24





Linux is only a kernel, and if users want to use it, then they need a complete distribution. That being said, how were the first versions of Linux used when there were no Linux distributions?







share|improve this question













Linux is only a kernel, and if users want to use it, then they need a complete distribution. That being said, how were the first versions of Linux used when there were no Linux distributions?









share|improve this question












share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Aug 9 at 14:19









fedorqui

3,83721853




3,83721853









asked Aug 7 at 17:07









noop

533223




533223







  • 66




    The premise of your question is flawed. You don't need a distribution to use Linux. You need the Linux kernel, and some userland code. That's it. A "distribution" is simply what we call it when someone else puts them together for you, instead of you doing it yourself.
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Aug 7 at 23:29






  • 9




    In reality, in the beggining was more a chicken-and-egg problem, for the lack of decent specific user land tools. Once the guy behind MCC Interim Linux cracked that egg, and wrote several tools himself, at least fdisk, the door was open for others to put forward their own Linux setup more easily.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 8 at 0:10







  • 8




    Revolution OS - movie about GNU/Linux history (English subtitle)
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:08







  • 5




    The Origins of Linux—Linus Torvalds
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:10






  • 5




    Aalto Talk with Linus Torvalds [Full-length]
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:15













  • 66




    The premise of your question is flawed. You don't need a distribution to use Linux. You need the Linux kernel, and some userland code. That's it. A "distribution" is simply what we call it when someone else puts them together for you, instead of you doing it yourself.
    – Jörg W Mittag
    Aug 7 at 23:29






  • 9




    In reality, in the beggining was more a chicken-and-egg problem, for the lack of decent specific user land tools. Once the guy behind MCC Interim Linux cracked that egg, and wrote several tools himself, at least fdisk, the door was open for others to put forward their own Linux setup more easily.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 8 at 0:10







  • 8




    Revolution OS - movie about GNU/Linux history (English subtitle)
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:08







  • 5




    The Origins of Linux—Linus Torvalds
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:10






  • 5




    Aalto Talk with Linus Torvalds [Full-length]
    – slm♦
    Aug 8 at 4:15








66




66




The premise of your question is flawed. You don't need a distribution to use Linux. You need the Linux kernel, and some userland code. That's it. A "distribution" is simply what we call it when someone else puts them together for you, instead of you doing it yourself.
– Jörg W Mittag
Aug 7 at 23:29




The premise of your question is flawed. You don't need a distribution to use Linux. You need the Linux kernel, and some userland code. That's it. A "distribution" is simply what we call it when someone else puts them together for you, instead of you doing it yourself.
– Jörg W Mittag
Aug 7 at 23:29




9




9




In reality, in the beggining was more a chicken-and-egg problem, for the lack of decent specific user land tools. Once the guy behind MCC Interim Linux cracked that egg, and wrote several tools himself, at least fdisk, the door was open for others to put forward their own Linux setup more easily.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Aug 8 at 0:10





In reality, in the beggining was more a chicken-and-egg problem, for the lack of decent specific user land tools. Once the guy behind MCC Interim Linux cracked that egg, and wrote several tools himself, at least fdisk, the door was open for others to put forward their own Linux setup more easily.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Aug 8 at 0:10





8




8




Revolution OS - movie about GNU/Linux history (English subtitle)
– slm♦
Aug 8 at 4:08





Revolution OS - movie about GNU/Linux history (English subtitle)
– slm♦
Aug 8 at 4:08





5




5




The Origins of Linux—Linus Torvalds
– slm♦
Aug 8 at 4:10




The Origins of Linux—Linus Torvalds
– slm♦
Aug 8 at 4:10




5




5




Aalto Talk with Linus Torvalds [Full-length]
– slm♦
Aug 8 at 4:15





Aalto Talk with Linus Torvalds [Full-length]
– slm♦
Aug 8 at 4:15











6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
152
down vote













In the early beginnings of Linux, Linus released the Linux kernel source in an "unusable" state, reportedly for signalling to others some work was being done into developing a new Unix-like kernel. By that time, as @RalfFriedi correctly points out, the Linux kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.



As for "usable" code, firstly Linus slapped a couple of utilities together with the Linux kernel in the very beginnings for others to test it out, namely bash and gcc:



From LINUX's History by Linus Torvalds

Link in Google groups to original Usenet post.




From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) 
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki


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
:-)




So Linus was "distributing" the kernel plus some core utility programs in a diskette image format for some more advanced users to try it out and possibly contribute.



Afterwards, there were H J Lu's Boot-root floppy disk images. Which, if it could be called a "distribution", would gain the fame of being the first one capable of being installed on disk, at least by power users.




These were two 5¼" diskette images containing the Linux kernel and the
minimum tools required to get started. So minimal were these tools
that to be able to boot from a hard drive required editing its master
boot record with a hex editor.




bootroot



Eventually the number of utilities available started outgrowing by a long way the diskette boot/root diskette setup.



MCC Interim Linux was then the first Linux distribution ever released able to be used by (slightly) less technical inclined people, introducing automated installation and new utils such as fdisk.




MCC Interim Linux was a Linux distribution first released in February
1992 by Owen Le Blanc of the Manchester Computing Centre (MCC), part
of the University of Manchester.



The first release of MCC Interim Linux was based on Linux 0.12 and
made use of Theodore Ts'o's ramdisk code to copy a small root image to
memory, freeing the floppy drive for additional utilities
diskettes.[2]



He also stated his distributions were "unofficial experiments",
describing the goals of his releases as being:



  • To provide a simple installation procedure.

  • To provide a more complete installation procedure.

  • To provide a backup/recovery service.

  • To back up his (then) current system.

  • To compile, link, and test every binary file under the current versions of the kernel, gcc, and libraries.

  • To provide a stable base system, which can be installed in a short time, and to which other software can be added with relatively little
    effort.



After the MCC percursor, SLS was the first distribution offering X Window System (May 1992). Notably, the competitor to SLS, the mythical Yggdrasil, went out later on (December 1992).



yggdrasil



Then there came other major distributors more as we know them today, notably Slackware (July 1993 - based on SLS) and Debian (from December 1993 until the first "official" v1.1 release - December 1995).



PS. Interestingly enough, Slackware and Debian turn 25 years old this year.



Image credits:

* Boot/Root diskettes image from: https://www.maketecheasier.com/

* yggdrasil diskette image from: https://yggdrasilblog.wordpress.com/






share|improve this answer



















  • 3




    It would be good to link to those email messages from the most basic original source, assuming they're archived online somewhere.
    – Wildcard
    Aug 7 at 19:42






  • 2




    @Wildcard Found that email message on a site claiming to be a Linus Torvald's page.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 7 at 19:54







  • 2




    @slm Actually from earlier times, I moved home too many times, and storage at my parents' is limited. I used to have 386BSD/FreeBSD early diskettes, and a PCworld CD from 93-95 (maybe 95) with the whole diskette set of Linux (cant remember distro). I also used to have the complete set of SCO V installation disks with a valid key that I ran in my 486. I had very advanced hw specs for the time, I worked for a computer major supplier.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 8 at 9:12







  • 22




    "(just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" Hah.
    – F. George
    Aug 10 at 10:34






  • 7




    just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu oh boy, were you wrong
    – Alvaro
    Aug 10 at 19:04

















up vote
16
down vote













In my case (c.1994) Linux came built as images suitable for 3.5" floppies (1.44MB), probably the follow-on to the 5 1/4" images mentioned above, and each has a specific set of drivers compiled in (network, VGA, etc.). So you had to know what you needed and sort of hope that you had suitable hardware.



After you booted, and could either connect to LAN or dialup via modem, then you went and found the software you needed (FTP, gopher, etc. -- this was right at the start of the "web" and search engines didn't really exist yet, so you had to know where to go or who to ask) and built it yourself.



I was ecstatic when I was able to boot my 486DX and dial into my university network (56k!) and mount an AFS share on machine at home...those were the days. ;)






share|improve this answer

















  • 2




    Assuming you did all this in 1994, it was probably more like 28.8k... good times!
    – GuitarPicker
    Aug 8 at 12:02










  • In 1994 you didn't have to juggle with floppies. I started with Linux this same year but Slackware already had full distributions on CD.
    – Gábor
    Aug 9 at 17:30










  • You had to buy a CD from a magazine. At the time CD burners were expensive. As for RH, I do remember downloading all the files via FTP over a weekend in a fantastic shared 256Kbps connection, building a CD image, and then burning the CD at work, maybe around 96.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 10 at 8:49











  • @GuitarPicker, that might have been optimistic. Many of us were on 1200,2400 still and in 1992 Linux generally came down an Academic Institution's pipe. Like Linus, our internet access was by dialup to a University. We had Usenet and Gopher but no graphical (Mosaic) WWW. In 1992 not everyone had a '386 either. I had an Olivetti M24 (AT&T) 8086 box with a Monochrome screen that ran Windows 1 (not well). Minix was a hobbyist or academic pursuit, and not free. Linux was regarded as a bandwidth hog, but it did get regular capacity hikes going. Linux was a big thing on Campus for programmers.
    – mckenzm
    Aug 13 at 15:40


















up vote
11
down vote













The short version



At the time that Linus started his kernel, the Gnu project had a working Operating system, except for a working kernel. So when people looked around, they found all of the tools that they needed: gcc (and friend: binutils), bash (and friends gnu-utils), emacs, …



They would then build their own system, from the parts.



It is where this joke comes from “If MS-Windows was an aeroplane, it would climb to 10 thousand feet, and then explode killing everyone in side, but at least you don't have to build your own aircraft before you depart.”






share|improve this answer



















  • 7




    And this is why most distributions are called GNU/Linux distributions, if you follow the GNU and FSF.
    – Nemo
    Aug 8 at 17:29










  • No. GNU didn't have a good libc library. Linux on old days used different libc libraries. Only relatively late we had a good glibc library. At beginning the minix tools were used (partly produced by GNU).
    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    Aug 13 at 15:34










  • @GiacomoCatenazzi true about libc. But it did have most of the user land tools. I remember in 1992 compiling GNU tools to run on Sun Solaris. (I did not start using Linux until it was mid transition to glibc.) Those tools had been around for a while (before Linux).
    – ctrl-alt-delor
    Aug 14 at 14:52










  • Yeah. I also started with Solaris, preferring GNU tools than the Sun ones. From there I wanted more so I went to Linux (and my first distribution didn't have any X systems. Red Hat clients could use a commercial X. Only later we had XFree86. The transition to true free (and mostly GNU) system took many years (kernel was just one step, but the most "democratic" step [computer + basic unix were finally for everyone (or better for students)).
    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    Aug 14 at 15:11

















up vote
9
down vote













Edited: Removed embarrassing lack of understand of how kernels work and left the important part.



The GNU userland existed before the Linux kernel did.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel



Peter MacDonald is largely recognized as having created the first 'usable' GNU/Linux distribution.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_MacDonald_(computer_programmer)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softlanding_Linux_System



From memory of some discussions I had with him: Peter was working as a Unix systems administrator for the government and going to the University of Victoria for a Masters Degree. Peter wanted a way to work from home, but the Unix desktop license costs were prohibitive. He was already familiar with the GNU userland tools so when he saw Linus Torvalds' message on the University network he took full advantage and wired GNU tools to the new kernel. So really, the initial problem was the reverse of your question: The userland already existed and all that was needed was a kernel.



Some other historical tidbits:



  • Peter did not distribute SLS Linux and did not charge a fee for the software. SLS was distributed by his wife Colleen and the fee was for the expensive and time consuming process of burning CDs to mail out.

  • Peter made a number of huge contributions to the kernel that have never been acknowledged including dynamic module loading and improved memory management.

  • The software was 'buggy' because he was working, going to school, raising two children and trying to keep Linux users happy. We all know how easy it is to keep Linux users happy...

  • Peter has no recollection of the 'argument'/'disagreement' over installer scripts that others have claimed caused a rift that started Slackware and Debian.





share|improve this answer



















  • 2




    If you can load a kernel into memory and execute the image, it will panic because it can't execute /sbin/init. init is already a userland tool. Any program in C to use the kernel API is a userland program.
    – RalfFriedl
    Aug 9 at 21:10










  • D'oh! Good point. I was trying to say that the tools users usually interact with are not required for the kernel to run. I'll re-think and update...
    – Dinsdale
    Aug 10 at 22:59










  • While it is pretty well documented Peter was neither the first or second distributing the kernel + user land utils, we as the Linux community own in a lot into putting an effort into shapping the Linux distributions into something similar as we know today.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 13 at 16:36

















up vote
9
down vote













In his book "Just For Fun" Linus Torvalds mentioned that the Linux kernel was initially a simple terminal emulator for connecting to remote Unix machine through a modem:




So ultimately I was able to change the two threads, the
AAAAAAAA and BBBBBBB, so that one read from the modem
and wrote to the screen, and the other read from the keyboard and
wrote to the modem. I had my own terminal emulation program.



When I wanted to read news, I would put in my floppy and
reboot the machine, and I would read news from the university
computer using my program. If I wanted to make changes to
improve the terminal emulation package, I would boot into Minix
and use it for programming...



And because I wanted to save files to my Minix file system — and because the Minix file system was well-documented anyway — I made my file system compatible with the Minix file system...



By the time I did this it was clear the project
was on its way to becoming an operating system. So I shifted my
thinking of it as a terminal emulator to thinking of it as an operating system.







share|improve this answer






























    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Linux was first started as an enhanced replacement for Minix and to understand protected mode programming on a i386. Minix came with source, and at the time there were the GNU userland utilities and the BSD userland utilities. Both were available with source. Linux tried to be POSIX compatible, so porting was not that difficult. One of the first steps was to run bash on Linux. You can consider the early days of Linux as cross compilation, the kernel had to be compiled on another system.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      The kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 7 at 17:39







    • 17




      To say that Linux was "started as an extension to Minix" is misleading. Yes, it's true that Linus was using Minix at that time, but Linux does not share a single line of code with Minix, and also follows a different design philosophy (microkernel vs. monolithic). Minix was also not officially available for the 386 at that time, whereas the Linux kernel was written for the 386 from the start. Linux's first filesystem was the Minix filesystem, because of compatibility, but this was also a complete reimplementation.
      – Johan Myréen
      Aug 8 at 6:56






    • 10




      Linus, and the author of Minix, both agree that it is not Minix or based on it.
      – ctrl-alt-delor
      Aug 8 at 10:53











    • @JohanMyréen Of course any short text is not the whole truth. Even Wikipedia contains only a short introduction. And I know that Linux was started because of the shortcomings of Minix. If there had been a Minix for i386, there might be no Linux today. On the other hand, Linux was inspired by Minix, and the first file system supported was Minix. But I agree extension is not the correct work, I changed the sentence.
      – RalfFriedl
      Aug 9 at 5:49










    Your Answer







    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "106"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );








     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f461113%2fif-linux-is-only-a-kernel-then-how-were-its-first-versions-used-without-distri%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    6 Answers
    6






    active

    oldest

    votes








    6 Answers
    6






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    152
    down vote













    In the early beginnings of Linux, Linus released the Linux kernel source in an "unusable" state, reportedly for signalling to others some work was being done into developing a new Unix-like kernel. By that time, as @RalfFriedi correctly points out, the Linux kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.



    As for "usable" code, firstly Linus slapped a couple of utilities together with the Linux kernel in the very beginnings for others to test it out, namely bash and gcc:



    From LINUX's History by Linus Torvalds

    Link in Google groups to original Usenet post.




    From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) 
    Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
    Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
    Summary: small poll for my new operating system
    Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
    Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
    Organization: University of Helsinki


    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
    :-)




    So Linus was "distributing" the kernel plus some core utility programs in a diskette image format for some more advanced users to try it out and possibly contribute.



    Afterwards, there were H J Lu's Boot-root floppy disk images. Which, if it could be called a "distribution", would gain the fame of being the first one capable of being installed on disk, at least by power users.




    These were two 5¼" diskette images containing the Linux kernel and the
    minimum tools required to get started. So minimal were these tools
    that to be able to boot from a hard drive required editing its master
    boot record with a hex editor.




    bootroot



    Eventually the number of utilities available started outgrowing by a long way the diskette boot/root diskette setup.



    MCC Interim Linux was then the first Linux distribution ever released able to be used by (slightly) less technical inclined people, introducing automated installation and new utils such as fdisk.




    MCC Interim Linux was a Linux distribution first released in February
    1992 by Owen Le Blanc of the Manchester Computing Centre (MCC), part
    of the University of Manchester.



    The first release of MCC Interim Linux was based on Linux 0.12 and
    made use of Theodore Ts'o's ramdisk code to copy a small root image to
    memory, freeing the floppy drive for additional utilities
    diskettes.[2]



    He also stated his distributions were "unofficial experiments",
    describing the goals of his releases as being:



    • To provide a simple installation procedure.

    • To provide a more complete installation procedure.

    • To provide a backup/recovery service.

    • To back up his (then) current system.

    • To compile, link, and test every binary file under the current versions of the kernel, gcc, and libraries.

    • To provide a stable base system, which can be installed in a short time, and to which other software can be added with relatively little
      effort.



    After the MCC percursor, SLS was the first distribution offering X Window System (May 1992). Notably, the competitor to SLS, the mythical Yggdrasil, went out later on (December 1992).



    yggdrasil



    Then there came other major distributors more as we know them today, notably Slackware (July 1993 - based on SLS) and Debian (from December 1993 until the first "official" v1.1 release - December 1995).



    PS. Interestingly enough, Slackware and Debian turn 25 years old this year.



    Image credits:

    * Boot/Root diskettes image from: https://www.maketecheasier.com/

    * yggdrasil diskette image from: https://yggdrasilblog.wordpress.com/






    share|improve this answer



















    • 3




      It would be good to link to those email messages from the most basic original source, assuming they're archived online somewhere.
      – Wildcard
      Aug 7 at 19:42






    • 2




      @Wildcard Found that email message on a site claiming to be a Linus Torvald's page.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 7 at 19:54







    • 2




      @slm Actually from earlier times, I moved home too many times, and storage at my parents' is limited. I used to have 386BSD/FreeBSD early diskettes, and a PCworld CD from 93-95 (maybe 95) with the whole diskette set of Linux (cant remember distro). I also used to have the complete set of SCO V installation disks with a valid key that I ran in my 486. I had very advanced hw specs for the time, I worked for a computer major supplier.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 8 at 9:12







    • 22




      "(just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" Hah.
      – F. George
      Aug 10 at 10:34






    • 7




      just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu oh boy, were you wrong
      – Alvaro
      Aug 10 at 19:04














    up vote
    152
    down vote













    In the early beginnings of Linux, Linus released the Linux kernel source in an "unusable" state, reportedly for signalling to others some work was being done into developing a new Unix-like kernel. By that time, as @RalfFriedi correctly points out, the Linux kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.



    As for "usable" code, firstly Linus slapped a couple of utilities together with the Linux kernel in the very beginnings for others to test it out, namely bash and gcc:



    From LINUX's History by Linus Torvalds

    Link in Google groups to original Usenet post.




    From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) 
    Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
    Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
    Summary: small poll for my new operating system
    Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
    Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
    Organization: University of Helsinki


    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
    :-)




    So Linus was "distributing" the kernel plus some core utility programs in a diskette image format for some more advanced users to try it out and possibly contribute.



    Afterwards, there were H J Lu's Boot-root floppy disk images. Which, if it could be called a "distribution", would gain the fame of being the first one capable of being installed on disk, at least by power users.




    These were two 5¼" diskette images containing the Linux kernel and the
    minimum tools required to get started. So minimal were these tools
    that to be able to boot from a hard drive required editing its master
    boot record with a hex editor.




    bootroot



    Eventually the number of utilities available started outgrowing by a long way the diskette boot/root diskette setup.



    MCC Interim Linux was then the first Linux distribution ever released able to be used by (slightly) less technical inclined people, introducing automated installation and new utils such as fdisk.




    MCC Interim Linux was a Linux distribution first released in February
    1992 by Owen Le Blanc of the Manchester Computing Centre (MCC), part
    of the University of Manchester.



    The first release of MCC Interim Linux was based on Linux 0.12 and
    made use of Theodore Ts'o's ramdisk code to copy a small root image to
    memory, freeing the floppy drive for additional utilities
    diskettes.[2]



    He also stated his distributions were "unofficial experiments",
    describing the goals of his releases as being:



    • To provide a simple installation procedure.

    • To provide a more complete installation procedure.

    • To provide a backup/recovery service.

    • To back up his (then) current system.

    • To compile, link, and test every binary file under the current versions of the kernel, gcc, and libraries.

    • To provide a stable base system, which can be installed in a short time, and to which other software can be added with relatively little
      effort.



    After the MCC percursor, SLS was the first distribution offering X Window System (May 1992). Notably, the competitor to SLS, the mythical Yggdrasil, went out later on (December 1992).



    yggdrasil



    Then there came other major distributors more as we know them today, notably Slackware (July 1993 - based on SLS) and Debian (from December 1993 until the first "official" v1.1 release - December 1995).



    PS. Interestingly enough, Slackware and Debian turn 25 years old this year.



    Image credits:

    * Boot/Root diskettes image from: https://www.maketecheasier.com/

    * yggdrasil diskette image from: https://yggdrasilblog.wordpress.com/






    share|improve this answer



















    • 3




      It would be good to link to those email messages from the most basic original source, assuming they're archived online somewhere.
      – Wildcard
      Aug 7 at 19:42






    • 2




      @Wildcard Found that email message on a site claiming to be a Linus Torvald's page.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 7 at 19:54







    • 2




      @slm Actually from earlier times, I moved home too many times, and storage at my parents' is limited. I used to have 386BSD/FreeBSD early diskettes, and a PCworld CD from 93-95 (maybe 95) with the whole diskette set of Linux (cant remember distro). I also used to have the complete set of SCO V installation disks with a valid key that I ran in my 486. I had very advanced hw specs for the time, I worked for a computer major supplier.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 8 at 9:12







    • 22




      "(just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" Hah.
      – F. George
      Aug 10 at 10:34






    • 7




      just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu oh boy, were you wrong
      – Alvaro
      Aug 10 at 19:04












    up vote
    152
    down vote










    up vote
    152
    down vote









    In the early beginnings of Linux, Linus released the Linux kernel source in an "unusable" state, reportedly for signalling to others some work was being done into developing a new Unix-like kernel. By that time, as @RalfFriedi correctly points out, the Linux kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.



    As for "usable" code, firstly Linus slapped a couple of utilities together with the Linux kernel in the very beginnings for others to test it out, namely bash and gcc:



    From LINUX's History by Linus Torvalds

    Link in Google groups to original Usenet post.




    From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) 
    Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
    Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
    Summary: small poll for my new operating system
    Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
    Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
    Organization: University of Helsinki


    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
    :-)




    So Linus was "distributing" the kernel plus some core utility programs in a diskette image format for some more advanced users to try it out and possibly contribute.



    Afterwards, there were H J Lu's Boot-root floppy disk images. Which, if it could be called a "distribution", would gain the fame of being the first one capable of being installed on disk, at least by power users.




    These were two 5¼" diskette images containing the Linux kernel and the
    minimum tools required to get started. So minimal were these tools
    that to be able to boot from a hard drive required editing its master
    boot record with a hex editor.




    bootroot



    Eventually the number of utilities available started outgrowing by a long way the diskette boot/root diskette setup.



    MCC Interim Linux was then the first Linux distribution ever released able to be used by (slightly) less technical inclined people, introducing automated installation and new utils such as fdisk.




    MCC Interim Linux was a Linux distribution first released in February
    1992 by Owen Le Blanc of the Manchester Computing Centre (MCC), part
    of the University of Manchester.



    The first release of MCC Interim Linux was based on Linux 0.12 and
    made use of Theodore Ts'o's ramdisk code to copy a small root image to
    memory, freeing the floppy drive for additional utilities
    diskettes.[2]



    He also stated his distributions were "unofficial experiments",
    describing the goals of his releases as being:



    • To provide a simple installation procedure.

    • To provide a more complete installation procedure.

    • To provide a backup/recovery service.

    • To back up his (then) current system.

    • To compile, link, and test every binary file under the current versions of the kernel, gcc, and libraries.

    • To provide a stable base system, which can be installed in a short time, and to which other software can be added with relatively little
      effort.



    After the MCC percursor, SLS was the first distribution offering X Window System (May 1992). Notably, the competitor to SLS, the mythical Yggdrasil, went out later on (December 1992).



    yggdrasil



    Then there came other major distributors more as we know them today, notably Slackware (July 1993 - based on SLS) and Debian (from December 1993 until the first "official" v1.1 release - December 1995).



    PS. Interestingly enough, Slackware and Debian turn 25 years old this year.



    Image credits:

    * Boot/Root diskettes image from: https://www.maketecheasier.com/

    * yggdrasil diskette image from: https://yggdrasilblog.wordpress.com/






    share|improve this answer















    In the early beginnings of Linux, Linus released the Linux kernel source in an "unusable" state, reportedly for signalling to others some work was being done into developing a new Unix-like kernel. By that time, as @RalfFriedi correctly points out, the Linux kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.



    As for "usable" code, firstly Linus slapped a couple of utilities together with the Linux kernel in the very beginnings for others to test it out, namely bash and gcc:



    From LINUX's History by Linus Torvalds

    Link in Google groups to original Usenet post.




    From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) 
    Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
    Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
    Summary: small poll for my new operating system
    Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
    Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
    Organization: University of Helsinki


    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
    :-)




    So Linus was "distributing" the kernel plus some core utility programs in a diskette image format for some more advanced users to try it out and possibly contribute.



    Afterwards, there were H J Lu's Boot-root floppy disk images. Which, if it could be called a "distribution", would gain the fame of being the first one capable of being installed on disk, at least by power users.




    These were two 5¼" diskette images containing the Linux kernel and the
    minimum tools required to get started. So minimal were these tools
    that to be able to boot from a hard drive required editing its master
    boot record with a hex editor.




    bootroot



    Eventually the number of utilities available started outgrowing by a long way the diskette boot/root diskette setup.



    MCC Interim Linux was then the first Linux distribution ever released able to be used by (slightly) less technical inclined people, introducing automated installation and new utils such as fdisk.




    MCC Interim Linux was a Linux distribution first released in February
    1992 by Owen Le Blanc of the Manchester Computing Centre (MCC), part
    of the University of Manchester.



    The first release of MCC Interim Linux was based on Linux 0.12 and
    made use of Theodore Ts'o's ramdisk code to copy a small root image to
    memory, freeing the floppy drive for additional utilities
    diskettes.[2]



    He also stated his distributions were "unofficial experiments",
    describing the goals of his releases as being:



    • To provide a simple installation procedure.

    • To provide a more complete installation procedure.

    • To provide a backup/recovery service.

    • To back up his (then) current system.

    • To compile, link, and test every binary file under the current versions of the kernel, gcc, and libraries.

    • To provide a stable base system, which can be installed in a short time, and to which other software can be added with relatively little
      effort.



    After the MCC percursor, SLS was the first distribution offering X Window System (May 1992). Notably, the competitor to SLS, the mythical Yggdrasil, went out later on (December 1992).



    yggdrasil



    Then there came other major distributors more as we know them today, notably Slackware (July 1993 - based on SLS) and Debian (from December 1993 until the first "official" v1.1 release - December 1995).



    PS. Interestingly enough, Slackware and Debian turn 25 years old this year.



    Image credits:

    * Boot/Root diskettes image from: https://www.maketecheasier.com/

    * yggdrasil diskette image from: https://yggdrasilblog.wordpress.com/







    share|improve this answer















    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Aug 16 at 20:44


























    answered Aug 7 at 17:35









    Rui F Ribeiro

    34.5k1269113




    34.5k1269113







    • 3




      It would be good to link to those email messages from the most basic original source, assuming they're archived online somewhere.
      – Wildcard
      Aug 7 at 19:42






    • 2




      @Wildcard Found that email message on a site claiming to be a Linus Torvald's page.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 7 at 19:54







    • 2




      @slm Actually from earlier times, I moved home too many times, and storage at my parents' is limited. I used to have 386BSD/FreeBSD early diskettes, and a PCworld CD from 93-95 (maybe 95) with the whole diskette set of Linux (cant remember distro). I also used to have the complete set of SCO V installation disks with a valid key that I ran in my 486. I had very advanced hw specs for the time, I worked for a computer major supplier.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 8 at 9:12







    • 22




      "(just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" Hah.
      – F. George
      Aug 10 at 10:34






    • 7




      just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu oh boy, were you wrong
      – Alvaro
      Aug 10 at 19:04












    • 3




      It would be good to link to those email messages from the most basic original source, assuming they're archived online somewhere.
      – Wildcard
      Aug 7 at 19:42






    • 2




      @Wildcard Found that email message on a site claiming to be a Linus Torvald's page.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 7 at 19:54







    • 2




      @slm Actually from earlier times, I moved home too many times, and storage at my parents' is limited. I used to have 386BSD/FreeBSD early diskettes, and a PCworld CD from 93-95 (maybe 95) with the whole diskette set of Linux (cant remember distro). I also used to have the complete set of SCO V installation disks with a valid key that I ran in my 486. I had very advanced hw specs for the time, I worked for a computer major supplier.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 8 at 9:12







    • 22




      "(just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" Hah.
      – F. George
      Aug 10 at 10:34






    • 7




      just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu oh boy, were you wrong
      – Alvaro
      Aug 10 at 19:04







    3




    3




    It would be good to link to those email messages from the most basic original source, assuming they're archived online somewhere.
    – Wildcard
    Aug 7 at 19:42




    It would be good to link to those email messages from the most basic original source, assuming they're archived online somewhere.
    – Wildcard
    Aug 7 at 19:42




    2




    2




    @Wildcard Found that email message on a site claiming to be a Linus Torvald's page.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 7 at 19:54





    @Wildcard Found that email message on a site claiming to be a Linus Torvald's page.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 7 at 19:54





    2




    2




    @slm Actually from earlier times, I moved home too many times, and storage at my parents' is limited. I used to have 386BSD/FreeBSD early diskettes, and a PCworld CD from 93-95 (maybe 95) with the whole diskette set of Linux (cant remember distro). I also used to have the complete set of SCO V installation disks with a valid key that I ran in my 486. I had very advanced hw specs for the time, I worked for a computer major supplier.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 8 at 9:12





    @slm Actually from earlier times, I moved home too many times, and storage at my parents' is limited. I used to have 386BSD/FreeBSD early diskettes, and a PCworld CD from 93-95 (maybe 95) with the whole diskette set of Linux (cant remember distro). I also used to have the complete set of SCO V installation disks with a valid key that I ran in my 486. I had very advanced hw specs for the time, I worked for a computer major supplier.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 8 at 9:12





    22




    22




    "(just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" Hah.
    – F. George
    Aug 10 at 10:34




    "(just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)" Hah.
    – F. George
    Aug 10 at 10:34




    7




    7




    just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu oh boy, were you wrong
    – Alvaro
    Aug 10 at 19:04




    just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu oh boy, were you wrong
    – Alvaro
    Aug 10 at 19:04












    up vote
    16
    down vote













    In my case (c.1994) Linux came built as images suitable for 3.5" floppies (1.44MB), probably the follow-on to the 5 1/4" images mentioned above, and each has a specific set of drivers compiled in (network, VGA, etc.). So you had to know what you needed and sort of hope that you had suitable hardware.



    After you booted, and could either connect to LAN or dialup via modem, then you went and found the software you needed (FTP, gopher, etc. -- this was right at the start of the "web" and search engines didn't really exist yet, so you had to know where to go or who to ask) and built it yourself.



    I was ecstatic when I was able to boot my 486DX and dial into my university network (56k!) and mount an AFS share on machine at home...those were the days. ;)






    share|improve this answer

















    • 2




      Assuming you did all this in 1994, it was probably more like 28.8k... good times!
      – GuitarPicker
      Aug 8 at 12:02










    • In 1994 you didn't have to juggle with floppies. I started with Linux this same year but Slackware already had full distributions on CD.
      – Gábor
      Aug 9 at 17:30










    • You had to buy a CD from a magazine. At the time CD burners were expensive. As for RH, I do remember downloading all the files via FTP over a weekend in a fantastic shared 256Kbps connection, building a CD image, and then burning the CD at work, maybe around 96.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 10 at 8:49











    • @GuitarPicker, that might have been optimistic. Many of us were on 1200,2400 still and in 1992 Linux generally came down an Academic Institution's pipe. Like Linus, our internet access was by dialup to a University. We had Usenet and Gopher but no graphical (Mosaic) WWW. In 1992 not everyone had a '386 either. I had an Olivetti M24 (AT&T) 8086 box with a Monochrome screen that ran Windows 1 (not well). Minix was a hobbyist or academic pursuit, and not free. Linux was regarded as a bandwidth hog, but it did get regular capacity hikes going. Linux was a big thing on Campus for programmers.
      – mckenzm
      Aug 13 at 15:40















    up vote
    16
    down vote













    In my case (c.1994) Linux came built as images suitable for 3.5" floppies (1.44MB), probably the follow-on to the 5 1/4" images mentioned above, and each has a specific set of drivers compiled in (network, VGA, etc.). So you had to know what you needed and sort of hope that you had suitable hardware.



    After you booted, and could either connect to LAN or dialup via modem, then you went and found the software you needed (FTP, gopher, etc. -- this was right at the start of the "web" and search engines didn't really exist yet, so you had to know where to go or who to ask) and built it yourself.



    I was ecstatic when I was able to boot my 486DX and dial into my university network (56k!) and mount an AFS share on machine at home...those were the days. ;)






    share|improve this answer

















    • 2




      Assuming you did all this in 1994, it was probably more like 28.8k... good times!
      – GuitarPicker
      Aug 8 at 12:02










    • In 1994 you didn't have to juggle with floppies. I started with Linux this same year but Slackware already had full distributions on CD.
      – Gábor
      Aug 9 at 17:30










    • You had to buy a CD from a magazine. At the time CD burners were expensive. As for RH, I do remember downloading all the files via FTP over a weekend in a fantastic shared 256Kbps connection, building a CD image, and then burning the CD at work, maybe around 96.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 10 at 8:49











    • @GuitarPicker, that might have been optimistic. Many of us were on 1200,2400 still and in 1992 Linux generally came down an Academic Institution's pipe. Like Linus, our internet access was by dialup to a University. We had Usenet and Gopher but no graphical (Mosaic) WWW. In 1992 not everyone had a '386 either. I had an Olivetti M24 (AT&T) 8086 box with a Monochrome screen that ran Windows 1 (not well). Minix was a hobbyist or academic pursuit, and not free. Linux was regarded as a bandwidth hog, but it did get regular capacity hikes going. Linux was a big thing on Campus for programmers.
      – mckenzm
      Aug 13 at 15:40













    up vote
    16
    down vote










    up vote
    16
    down vote









    In my case (c.1994) Linux came built as images suitable for 3.5" floppies (1.44MB), probably the follow-on to the 5 1/4" images mentioned above, and each has a specific set of drivers compiled in (network, VGA, etc.). So you had to know what you needed and sort of hope that you had suitable hardware.



    After you booted, and could either connect to LAN or dialup via modem, then you went and found the software you needed (FTP, gopher, etc. -- this was right at the start of the "web" and search engines didn't really exist yet, so you had to know where to go or who to ask) and built it yourself.



    I was ecstatic when I was able to boot my 486DX and dial into my university network (56k!) and mount an AFS share on machine at home...those were the days. ;)






    share|improve this answer













    In my case (c.1994) Linux came built as images suitable for 3.5" floppies (1.44MB), probably the follow-on to the 5 1/4" images mentioned above, and each has a specific set of drivers compiled in (network, VGA, etc.). So you had to know what you needed and sort of hope that you had suitable hardware.



    After you booted, and could either connect to LAN or dialup via modem, then you went and found the software you needed (FTP, gopher, etc. -- this was right at the start of the "web" and search engines didn't really exist yet, so you had to know where to go or who to ask) and built it yourself.



    I was ecstatic when I was able to boot my 486DX and dial into my university network (56k!) and mount an AFS share on machine at home...those were the days. ;)







    share|improve this answer













    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer











    answered Aug 8 at 0:31









    Xavier

    1612




    1612







    • 2




      Assuming you did all this in 1994, it was probably more like 28.8k... good times!
      – GuitarPicker
      Aug 8 at 12:02










    • In 1994 you didn't have to juggle with floppies. I started with Linux this same year but Slackware already had full distributions on CD.
      – Gábor
      Aug 9 at 17:30










    • You had to buy a CD from a magazine. At the time CD burners were expensive. As for RH, I do remember downloading all the files via FTP over a weekend in a fantastic shared 256Kbps connection, building a CD image, and then burning the CD at work, maybe around 96.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 10 at 8:49











    • @GuitarPicker, that might have been optimistic. Many of us were on 1200,2400 still and in 1992 Linux generally came down an Academic Institution's pipe. Like Linus, our internet access was by dialup to a University. We had Usenet and Gopher but no graphical (Mosaic) WWW. In 1992 not everyone had a '386 either. I had an Olivetti M24 (AT&T) 8086 box with a Monochrome screen that ran Windows 1 (not well). Minix was a hobbyist or academic pursuit, and not free. Linux was regarded as a bandwidth hog, but it did get regular capacity hikes going. Linux was a big thing on Campus for programmers.
      – mckenzm
      Aug 13 at 15:40













    • 2




      Assuming you did all this in 1994, it was probably more like 28.8k... good times!
      – GuitarPicker
      Aug 8 at 12:02










    • In 1994 you didn't have to juggle with floppies. I started with Linux this same year but Slackware already had full distributions on CD.
      – Gábor
      Aug 9 at 17:30










    • You had to buy a CD from a magazine. At the time CD burners were expensive. As for RH, I do remember downloading all the files via FTP over a weekend in a fantastic shared 256Kbps connection, building a CD image, and then burning the CD at work, maybe around 96.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 10 at 8:49











    • @GuitarPicker, that might have been optimistic. Many of us were on 1200,2400 still and in 1992 Linux generally came down an Academic Institution's pipe. Like Linus, our internet access was by dialup to a University. We had Usenet and Gopher but no graphical (Mosaic) WWW. In 1992 not everyone had a '386 either. I had an Olivetti M24 (AT&T) 8086 box with a Monochrome screen that ran Windows 1 (not well). Minix was a hobbyist or academic pursuit, and not free. Linux was regarded as a bandwidth hog, but it did get regular capacity hikes going. Linux was a big thing on Campus for programmers.
      – mckenzm
      Aug 13 at 15:40








    2




    2




    Assuming you did all this in 1994, it was probably more like 28.8k... good times!
    – GuitarPicker
    Aug 8 at 12:02




    Assuming you did all this in 1994, it was probably more like 28.8k... good times!
    – GuitarPicker
    Aug 8 at 12:02












    In 1994 you didn't have to juggle with floppies. I started with Linux this same year but Slackware already had full distributions on CD.
    – Gábor
    Aug 9 at 17:30




    In 1994 you didn't have to juggle with floppies. I started with Linux this same year but Slackware already had full distributions on CD.
    – Gábor
    Aug 9 at 17:30












    You had to buy a CD from a magazine. At the time CD burners were expensive. As for RH, I do remember downloading all the files via FTP over a weekend in a fantastic shared 256Kbps connection, building a CD image, and then burning the CD at work, maybe around 96.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 10 at 8:49





    You had to buy a CD from a magazine. At the time CD burners were expensive. As for RH, I do remember downloading all the files via FTP over a weekend in a fantastic shared 256Kbps connection, building a CD image, and then burning the CD at work, maybe around 96.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 10 at 8:49













    @GuitarPicker, that might have been optimistic. Many of us were on 1200,2400 still and in 1992 Linux generally came down an Academic Institution's pipe. Like Linus, our internet access was by dialup to a University. We had Usenet and Gopher but no graphical (Mosaic) WWW. In 1992 not everyone had a '386 either. I had an Olivetti M24 (AT&T) 8086 box with a Monochrome screen that ran Windows 1 (not well). Minix was a hobbyist or academic pursuit, and not free. Linux was regarded as a bandwidth hog, but it did get regular capacity hikes going. Linux was a big thing on Campus for programmers.
    – mckenzm
    Aug 13 at 15:40





    @GuitarPicker, that might have been optimistic. Many of us were on 1200,2400 still and in 1992 Linux generally came down an Academic Institution's pipe. Like Linus, our internet access was by dialup to a University. We had Usenet and Gopher but no graphical (Mosaic) WWW. In 1992 not everyone had a '386 either. I had an Olivetti M24 (AT&T) 8086 box with a Monochrome screen that ran Windows 1 (not well). Minix was a hobbyist or academic pursuit, and not free. Linux was regarded as a bandwidth hog, but it did get regular capacity hikes going. Linux was a big thing on Campus for programmers.
    – mckenzm
    Aug 13 at 15:40











    up vote
    11
    down vote













    The short version



    At the time that Linus started his kernel, the Gnu project had a working Operating system, except for a working kernel. So when people looked around, they found all of the tools that they needed: gcc (and friend: binutils), bash (and friends gnu-utils), emacs, …



    They would then build their own system, from the parts.



    It is where this joke comes from “If MS-Windows was an aeroplane, it would climb to 10 thousand feet, and then explode killing everyone in side, but at least you don't have to build your own aircraft before you depart.”






    share|improve this answer



















    • 7




      And this is why most distributions are called GNU/Linux distributions, if you follow the GNU and FSF.
      – Nemo
      Aug 8 at 17:29










    • No. GNU didn't have a good libc library. Linux on old days used different libc libraries. Only relatively late we had a good glibc library. At beginning the minix tools were used (partly produced by GNU).
      – Giacomo Catenazzi
      Aug 13 at 15:34










    • @GiacomoCatenazzi true about libc. But it did have most of the user land tools. I remember in 1992 compiling GNU tools to run on Sun Solaris. (I did not start using Linux until it was mid transition to glibc.) Those tools had been around for a while (before Linux).
      – ctrl-alt-delor
      Aug 14 at 14:52










    • Yeah. I also started with Solaris, preferring GNU tools than the Sun ones. From there I wanted more so I went to Linux (and my first distribution didn't have any X systems. Red Hat clients could use a commercial X. Only later we had XFree86. The transition to true free (and mostly GNU) system took many years (kernel was just one step, but the most "democratic" step [computer + basic unix were finally for everyone (or better for students)).
      – Giacomo Catenazzi
      Aug 14 at 15:11














    up vote
    11
    down vote













    The short version



    At the time that Linus started his kernel, the Gnu project had a working Operating system, except for a working kernel. So when people looked around, they found all of the tools that they needed: gcc (and friend: binutils), bash (and friends gnu-utils), emacs, …



    They would then build their own system, from the parts.



    It is where this joke comes from “If MS-Windows was an aeroplane, it would climb to 10 thousand feet, and then explode killing everyone in side, but at least you don't have to build your own aircraft before you depart.”






    share|improve this answer



















    • 7




      And this is why most distributions are called GNU/Linux distributions, if you follow the GNU and FSF.
      – Nemo
      Aug 8 at 17:29










    • No. GNU didn't have a good libc library. Linux on old days used different libc libraries. Only relatively late we had a good glibc library. At beginning the minix tools were used (partly produced by GNU).
      – Giacomo Catenazzi
      Aug 13 at 15:34










    • @GiacomoCatenazzi true about libc. But it did have most of the user land tools. I remember in 1992 compiling GNU tools to run on Sun Solaris. (I did not start using Linux until it was mid transition to glibc.) Those tools had been around for a while (before Linux).
      – ctrl-alt-delor
      Aug 14 at 14:52










    • Yeah. I also started with Solaris, preferring GNU tools than the Sun ones. From there I wanted more so I went to Linux (and my first distribution didn't have any X systems. Red Hat clients could use a commercial X. Only later we had XFree86. The transition to true free (and mostly GNU) system took many years (kernel was just one step, but the most "democratic" step [computer + basic unix were finally for everyone (or better for students)).
      – Giacomo Catenazzi
      Aug 14 at 15:11












    up vote
    11
    down vote










    up vote
    11
    down vote









    The short version



    At the time that Linus started his kernel, the Gnu project had a working Operating system, except for a working kernel. So when people looked around, they found all of the tools that they needed: gcc (and friend: binutils), bash (and friends gnu-utils), emacs, …



    They would then build their own system, from the parts.



    It is where this joke comes from “If MS-Windows was an aeroplane, it would climb to 10 thousand feet, and then explode killing everyone in side, but at least you don't have to build your own aircraft before you depart.”






    share|improve this answer















    The short version



    At the time that Linus started his kernel, the Gnu project had a working Operating system, except for a working kernel. So when people looked around, they found all of the tools that they needed: gcc (and friend: binutils), bash (and friends gnu-utils), emacs, …



    They would then build their own system, from the parts.



    It is where this joke comes from “If MS-Windows was an aeroplane, it would climb to 10 thousand feet, and then explode killing everyone in side, but at least you don't have to build your own aircraft before you depart.”







    share|improve this answer















    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Aug 9 at 17:36









    Toby Speight

    4,9451928




    4,9451928











    answered Aug 8 at 10:51









    ctrl-alt-delor

    8,76031947




    8,76031947







    • 7




      And this is why most distributions are called GNU/Linux distributions, if you follow the GNU and FSF.
      – Nemo
      Aug 8 at 17:29










    • No. GNU didn't have a good libc library. Linux on old days used different libc libraries. Only relatively late we had a good glibc library. At beginning the minix tools were used (partly produced by GNU).
      – Giacomo Catenazzi
      Aug 13 at 15:34










    • @GiacomoCatenazzi true about libc. But it did have most of the user land tools. I remember in 1992 compiling GNU tools to run on Sun Solaris. (I did not start using Linux until it was mid transition to glibc.) Those tools had been around for a while (before Linux).
      – ctrl-alt-delor
      Aug 14 at 14:52










    • Yeah. I also started with Solaris, preferring GNU tools than the Sun ones. From there I wanted more so I went to Linux (and my first distribution didn't have any X systems. Red Hat clients could use a commercial X. Only later we had XFree86. The transition to true free (and mostly GNU) system took many years (kernel was just one step, but the most "democratic" step [computer + basic unix were finally for everyone (or better for students)).
      – Giacomo Catenazzi
      Aug 14 at 15:11












    • 7




      And this is why most distributions are called GNU/Linux distributions, if you follow the GNU and FSF.
      – Nemo
      Aug 8 at 17:29










    • No. GNU didn't have a good libc library. Linux on old days used different libc libraries. Only relatively late we had a good glibc library. At beginning the minix tools were used (partly produced by GNU).
      – Giacomo Catenazzi
      Aug 13 at 15:34










    • @GiacomoCatenazzi true about libc. But it did have most of the user land tools. I remember in 1992 compiling GNU tools to run on Sun Solaris. (I did not start using Linux until it was mid transition to glibc.) Those tools had been around for a while (before Linux).
      – ctrl-alt-delor
      Aug 14 at 14:52










    • Yeah. I also started with Solaris, preferring GNU tools than the Sun ones. From there I wanted more so I went to Linux (and my first distribution didn't have any X systems. Red Hat clients could use a commercial X. Only later we had XFree86. The transition to true free (and mostly GNU) system took many years (kernel was just one step, but the most "democratic" step [computer + basic unix were finally for everyone (or better for students)).
      – Giacomo Catenazzi
      Aug 14 at 15:11







    7




    7




    And this is why most distributions are called GNU/Linux distributions, if you follow the GNU and FSF.
    – Nemo
    Aug 8 at 17:29




    And this is why most distributions are called GNU/Linux distributions, if you follow the GNU and FSF.
    – Nemo
    Aug 8 at 17:29












    No. GNU didn't have a good libc library. Linux on old days used different libc libraries. Only relatively late we had a good glibc library. At beginning the minix tools were used (partly produced by GNU).
    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    Aug 13 at 15:34




    No. GNU didn't have a good libc library. Linux on old days used different libc libraries. Only relatively late we had a good glibc library. At beginning the minix tools were used (partly produced by GNU).
    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    Aug 13 at 15:34












    @GiacomoCatenazzi true about libc. But it did have most of the user land tools. I remember in 1992 compiling GNU tools to run on Sun Solaris. (I did not start using Linux until it was mid transition to glibc.) Those tools had been around for a while (before Linux).
    – ctrl-alt-delor
    Aug 14 at 14:52




    @GiacomoCatenazzi true about libc. But it did have most of the user land tools. I remember in 1992 compiling GNU tools to run on Sun Solaris. (I did not start using Linux until it was mid transition to glibc.) Those tools had been around for a while (before Linux).
    – ctrl-alt-delor
    Aug 14 at 14:52












    Yeah. I also started with Solaris, preferring GNU tools than the Sun ones. From there I wanted more so I went to Linux (and my first distribution didn't have any X systems. Red Hat clients could use a commercial X. Only later we had XFree86. The transition to true free (and mostly GNU) system took many years (kernel was just one step, but the most "democratic" step [computer + basic unix were finally for everyone (or better for students)).
    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    Aug 14 at 15:11




    Yeah. I also started with Solaris, preferring GNU tools than the Sun ones. From there I wanted more so I went to Linux (and my first distribution didn't have any X systems. Red Hat clients could use a commercial X. Only later we had XFree86. The transition to true free (and mostly GNU) system took many years (kernel was just one step, but the most "democratic" step [computer + basic unix were finally for everyone (or better for students)).
    – Giacomo Catenazzi
    Aug 14 at 15:11










    up vote
    9
    down vote













    Edited: Removed embarrassing lack of understand of how kernels work and left the important part.



    The GNU userland existed before the Linux kernel did.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel



    Peter MacDonald is largely recognized as having created the first 'usable' GNU/Linux distribution.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_MacDonald_(computer_programmer)



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softlanding_Linux_System



    From memory of some discussions I had with him: Peter was working as a Unix systems administrator for the government and going to the University of Victoria for a Masters Degree. Peter wanted a way to work from home, but the Unix desktop license costs were prohibitive. He was already familiar with the GNU userland tools so when he saw Linus Torvalds' message on the University network he took full advantage and wired GNU tools to the new kernel. So really, the initial problem was the reverse of your question: The userland already existed and all that was needed was a kernel.



    Some other historical tidbits:



    • Peter did not distribute SLS Linux and did not charge a fee for the software. SLS was distributed by his wife Colleen and the fee was for the expensive and time consuming process of burning CDs to mail out.

    • Peter made a number of huge contributions to the kernel that have never been acknowledged including dynamic module loading and improved memory management.

    • The software was 'buggy' because he was working, going to school, raising two children and trying to keep Linux users happy. We all know how easy it is to keep Linux users happy...

    • Peter has no recollection of the 'argument'/'disagreement' over installer scripts that others have claimed caused a rift that started Slackware and Debian.





    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      If you can load a kernel into memory and execute the image, it will panic because it can't execute /sbin/init. init is already a userland tool. Any program in C to use the kernel API is a userland program.
      – RalfFriedl
      Aug 9 at 21:10










    • D'oh! Good point. I was trying to say that the tools users usually interact with are not required for the kernel to run. I'll re-think and update...
      – Dinsdale
      Aug 10 at 22:59










    • While it is pretty well documented Peter was neither the first or second distributing the kernel + user land utils, we as the Linux community own in a lot into putting an effort into shapping the Linux distributions into something similar as we know today.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 13 at 16:36














    up vote
    9
    down vote













    Edited: Removed embarrassing lack of understand of how kernels work and left the important part.



    The GNU userland existed before the Linux kernel did.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel



    Peter MacDonald is largely recognized as having created the first 'usable' GNU/Linux distribution.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_MacDonald_(computer_programmer)



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softlanding_Linux_System



    From memory of some discussions I had with him: Peter was working as a Unix systems administrator for the government and going to the University of Victoria for a Masters Degree. Peter wanted a way to work from home, but the Unix desktop license costs were prohibitive. He was already familiar with the GNU userland tools so when he saw Linus Torvalds' message on the University network he took full advantage and wired GNU tools to the new kernel. So really, the initial problem was the reverse of your question: The userland already existed and all that was needed was a kernel.



    Some other historical tidbits:



    • Peter did not distribute SLS Linux and did not charge a fee for the software. SLS was distributed by his wife Colleen and the fee was for the expensive and time consuming process of burning CDs to mail out.

    • Peter made a number of huge contributions to the kernel that have never been acknowledged including dynamic module loading and improved memory management.

    • The software was 'buggy' because he was working, going to school, raising two children and trying to keep Linux users happy. We all know how easy it is to keep Linux users happy...

    • Peter has no recollection of the 'argument'/'disagreement' over installer scripts that others have claimed caused a rift that started Slackware and Debian.





    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      If you can load a kernel into memory and execute the image, it will panic because it can't execute /sbin/init. init is already a userland tool. Any program in C to use the kernel API is a userland program.
      – RalfFriedl
      Aug 9 at 21:10










    • D'oh! Good point. I was trying to say that the tools users usually interact with are not required for the kernel to run. I'll re-think and update...
      – Dinsdale
      Aug 10 at 22:59










    • While it is pretty well documented Peter was neither the first or second distributing the kernel + user land utils, we as the Linux community own in a lot into putting an effort into shapping the Linux distributions into something similar as we know today.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 13 at 16:36












    up vote
    9
    down vote










    up vote
    9
    down vote









    Edited: Removed embarrassing lack of understand of how kernels work and left the important part.



    The GNU userland existed before the Linux kernel did.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel



    Peter MacDonald is largely recognized as having created the first 'usable' GNU/Linux distribution.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_MacDonald_(computer_programmer)



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softlanding_Linux_System



    From memory of some discussions I had with him: Peter was working as a Unix systems administrator for the government and going to the University of Victoria for a Masters Degree. Peter wanted a way to work from home, but the Unix desktop license costs were prohibitive. He was already familiar with the GNU userland tools so when he saw Linus Torvalds' message on the University network he took full advantage and wired GNU tools to the new kernel. So really, the initial problem was the reverse of your question: The userland already existed and all that was needed was a kernel.



    Some other historical tidbits:



    • Peter did not distribute SLS Linux and did not charge a fee for the software. SLS was distributed by his wife Colleen and the fee was for the expensive and time consuming process of burning CDs to mail out.

    • Peter made a number of huge contributions to the kernel that have never been acknowledged including dynamic module loading and improved memory management.

    • The software was 'buggy' because he was working, going to school, raising two children and trying to keep Linux users happy. We all know how easy it is to keep Linux users happy...

    • Peter has no recollection of the 'argument'/'disagreement' over installer scripts that others have claimed caused a rift that started Slackware and Debian.





    share|improve this answer















    Edited: Removed embarrassing lack of understand of how kernels work and left the important part.



    The GNU userland existed before the Linux kernel did.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel



    Peter MacDonald is largely recognized as having created the first 'usable' GNU/Linux distribution.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_MacDonald_(computer_programmer)



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softlanding_Linux_System



    From memory of some discussions I had with him: Peter was working as a Unix systems administrator for the government and going to the University of Victoria for a Masters Degree. Peter wanted a way to work from home, but the Unix desktop license costs were prohibitive. He was already familiar with the GNU userland tools so when he saw Linus Torvalds' message on the University network he took full advantage and wired GNU tools to the new kernel. So really, the initial problem was the reverse of your question: The userland already existed and all that was needed was a kernel.



    Some other historical tidbits:



    • Peter did not distribute SLS Linux and did not charge a fee for the software. SLS was distributed by his wife Colleen and the fee was for the expensive and time consuming process of burning CDs to mail out.

    • Peter made a number of huge contributions to the kernel that have never been acknowledged including dynamic module loading and improved memory management.

    • The software was 'buggy' because he was working, going to school, raising two children and trying to keep Linux users happy. We all know how easy it is to keep Linux users happy...

    • Peter has no recollection of the 'argument'/'disagreement' over installer scripts that others have claimed caused a rift that started Slackware and Debian.






    share|improve this answer















    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Aug 13 at 15:05


























    answered Aug 9 at 20:57









    Dinsdale

    1212




    1212







    • 2




      If you can load a kernel into memory and execute the image, it will panic because it can't execute /sbin/init. init is already a userland tool. Any program in C to use the kernel API is a userland program.
      – RalfFriedl
      Aug 9 at 21:10










    • D'oh! Good point. I was trying to say that the tools users usually interact with are not required for the kernel to run. I'll re-think and update...
      – Dinsdale
      Aug 10 at 22:59










    • While it is pretty well documented Peter was neither the first or second distributing the kernel + user land utils, we as the Linux community own in a lot into putting an effort into shapping the Linux distributions into something similar as we know today.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 13 at 16:36












    • 2




      If you can load a kernel into memory and execute the image, it will panic because it can't execute /sbin/init. init is already a userland tool. Any program in C to use the kernel API is a userland program.
      – RalfFriedl
      Aug 9 at 21:10










    • D'oh! Good point. I was trying to say that the tools users usually interact with are not required for the kernel to run. I'll re-think and update...
      – Dinsdale
      Aug 10 at 22:59










    • While it is pretty well documented Peter was neither the first or second distributing the kernel + user land utils, we as the Linux community own in a lot into putting an effort into shapping the Linux distributions into something similar as we know today.
      – Rui F Ribeiro
      Aug 13 at 16:36







    2




    2




    If you can load a kernel into memory and execute the image, it will panic because it can't execute /sbin/init. init is already a userland tool. Any program in C to use the kernel API is a userland program.
    – RalfFriedl
    Aug 9 at 21:10




    If you can load a kernel into memory and execute the image, it will panic because it can't execute /sbin/init. init is already a userland tool. Any program in C to use the kernel API is a userland program.
    – RalfFriedl
    Aug 9 at 21:10












    D'oh! Good point. I was trying to say that the tools users usually interact with are not required for the kernel to run. I'll re-think and update...
    – Dinsdale
    Aug 10 at 22:59




    D'oh! Good point. I was trying to say that the tools users usually interact with are not required for the kernel to run. I'll re-think and update...
    – Dinsdale
    Aug 10 at 22:59












    While it is pretty well documented Peter was neither the first or second distributing the kernel + user land utils, we as the Linux community own in a lot into putting an effort into shapping the Linux distributions into something similar as we know today.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 13 at 16:36




    While it is pretty well documented Peter was neither the first or second distributing the kernel + user land utils, we as the Linux community own in a lot into putting an effort into shapping the Linux distributions into something similar as we know today.
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Aug 13 at 16:36










    up vote
    9
    down vote













    In his book "Just For Fun" Linus Torvalds mentioned that the Linux kernel was initially a simple terminal emulator for connecting to remote Unix machine through a modem:




    So ultimately I was able to change the two threads, the
    AAAAAAAA and BBBBBBB, so that one read from the modem
    and wrote to the screen, and the other read from the keyboard and
    wrote to the modem. I had my own terminal emulation program.



    When I wanted to read news, I would put in my floppy and
    reboot the machine, and I would read news from the university
    computer using my program. If I wanted to make changes to
    improve the terminal emulation package, I would boot into Minix
    and use it for programming...



    And because I wanted to save files to my Minix file system — and because the Minix file system was well-documented anyway — I made my file system compatible with the Minix file system...



    By the time I did this it was clear the project
    was on its way to becoming an operating system. So I shifted my
    thinking of it as a terminal emulator to thinking of it as an operating system.







    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      9
      down vote













      In his book "Just For Fun" Linus Torvalds mentioned that the Linux kernel was initially a simple terminal emulator for connecting to remote Unix machine through a modem:




      So ultimately I was able to change the two threads, the
      AAAAAAAA and BBBBBBB, so that one read from the modem
      and wrote to the screen, and the other read from the keyboard and
      wrote to the modem. I had my own terminal emulation program.



      When I wanted to read news, I would put in my floppy and
      reboot the machine, and I would read news from the university
      computer using my program. If I wanted to make changes to
      improve the terminal emulation package, I would boot into Minix
      and use it for programming...



      And because I wanted to save files to my Minix file system — and because the Minix file system was well-documented anyway — I made my file system compatible with the Minix file system...



      By the time I did this it was clear the project
      was on its way to becoming an operating system. So I shifted my
      thinking of it as a terminal emulator to thinking of it as an operating system.







      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        9
        down vote










        up vote
        9
        down vote









        In his book "Just For Fun" Linus Torvalds mentioned that the Linux kernel was initially a simple terminal emulator for connecting to remote Unix machine through a modem:




        So ultimately I was able to change the two threads, the
        AAAAAAAA and BBBBBBB, so that one read from the modem
        and wrote to the screen, and the other read from the keyboard and
        wrote to the modem. I had my own terminal emulation program.



        When I wanted to read news, I would put in my floppy and
        reboot the machine, and I would read news from the university
        computer using my program. If I wanted to make changes to
        improve the terminal emulation package, I would boot into Minix
        and use it for programming...



        And because I wanted to save files to my Minix file system — and because the Minix file system was well-documented anyway — I made my file system compatible with the Minix file system...



        By the time I did this it was clear the project
        was on its way to becoming an operating system. So I shifted my
        thinking of it as a terminal emulator to thinking of it as an operating system.







        share|improve this answer















        In his book "Just For Fun" Linus Torvalds mentioned that the Linux kernel was initially a simple terminal emulator for connecting to remote Unix machine through a modem:




        So ultimately I was able to change the two threads, the
        AAAAAAAA and BBBBBBB, so that one read from the modem
        and wrote to the screen, and the other read from the keyboard and
        wrote to the modem. I had my own terminal emulation program.



        When I wanted to read news, I would put in my floppy and
        reboot the machine, and I would read news from the university
        computer using my program. If I wanted to make changes to
        improve the terminal emulation package, I would boot into Minix
        and use it for programming...



        And because I wanted to save files to my Minix file system — and because the Minix file system was well-documented anyway — I made my file system compatible with the Minix file system...



        By the time I did this it was clear the project
        was on its way to becoming an operating system. So I shifted my
        thinking of it as a terminal emulator to thinking of it as an operating system.








        share|improve this answer















        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Aug 13 at 15:13









        GAD3R

        22.2k154891




        22.2k154891











        answered Aug 9 at 22:00









        bodqhrohro

        25114




        25114




















            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Linux was first started as an enhanced replacement for Minix and to understand protected mode programming on a i386. Minix came with source, and at the time there were the GNU userland utilities and the BSD userland utilities. Both were available with source. Linux tried to be POSIX compatible, so porting was not that difficult. One of the first steps was to run bash on Linux. You can consider the early days of Linux as cross compilation, the kernel had to be compiled on another system.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 2




              The kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.
              – Rui F Ribeiro
              Aug 7 at 17:39







            • 17




              To say that Linux was "started as an extension to Minix" is misleading. Yes, it's true that Linus was using Minix at that time, but Linux does not share a single line of code with Minix, and also follows a different design philosophy (microkernel vs. monolithic). Minix was also not officially available for the 386 at that time, whereas the Linux kernel was written for the 386 from the start. Linux's first filesystem was the Minix filesystem, because of compatibility, but this was also a complete reimplementation.
              – Johan Myréen
              Aug 8 at 6:56






            • 10




              Linus, and the author of Minix, both agree that it is not Minix or based on it.
              – ctrl-alt-delor
              Aug 8 at 10:53











            • @JohanMyréen Of course any short text is not the whole truth. Even Wikipedia contains only a short introduction. And I know that Linux was started because of the shortcomings of Minix. If there had been a Minix for i386, there might be no Linux today. On the other hand, Linux was inspired by Minix, and the first file system supported was Minix. But I agree extension is not the correct work, I changed the sentence.
              – RalfFriedl
              Aug 9 at 5:49














            up vote
            2
            down vote













            Linux was first started as an enhanced replacement for Minix and to understand protected mode programming on a i386. Minix came with source, and at the time there were the GNU userland utilities and the BSD userland utilities. Both were available with source. Linux tried to be POSIX compatible, so porting was not that difficult. One of the first steps was to run bash on Linux. You can consider the early days of Linux as cross compilation, the kernel had to be compiled on another system.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 2




              The kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.
              – Rui F Ribeiro
              Aug 7 at 17:39







            • 17




              To say that Linux was "started as an extension to Minix" is misleading. Yes, it's true that Linus was using Minix at that time, but Linux does not share a single line of code with Minix, and also follows a different design philosophy (microkernel vs. monolithic). Minix was also not officially available for the 386 at that time, whereas the Linux kernel was written for the 386 from the start. Linux's first filesystem was the Minix filesystem, because of compatibility, but this was also a complete reimplementation.
              – Johan Myréen
              Aug 8 at 6:56






            • 10




              Linus, and the author of Minix, both agree that it is not Minix or based on it.
              – ctrl-alt-delor
              Aug 8 at 10:53











            • @JohanMyréen Of course any short text is not the whole truth. Even Wikipedia contains only a short introduction. And I know that Linux was started because of the shortcomings of Minix. If there had been a Minix for i386, there might be no Linux today. On the other hand, Linux was inspired by Minix, and the first file system supported was Minix. But I agree extension is not the correct work, I changed the sentence.
              – RalfFriedl
              Aug 9 at 5:49












            up vote
            2
            down vote










            up vote
            2
            down vote









            Linux was first started as an enhanced replacement for Minix and to understand protected mode programming on a i386. Minix came with source, and at the time there were the GNU userland utilities and the BSD userland utilities. Both were available with source. Linux tried to be POSIX compatible, so porting was not that difficult. One of the first steps was to run bash on Linux. You can consider the early days of Linux as cross compilation, the kernel had to be compiled on another system.






            share|improve this answer















            Linux was first started as an enhanced replacement for Minix and to understand protected mode programming on a i386. Minix came with source, and at the time there were the GNU userland utilities and the BSD userland utilities. Both were available with source. Linux tried to be POSIX compatible, so porting was not that difficult. One of the first steps was to run bash on Linux. You can consider the early days of Linux as cross compilation, the kernel had to be compiled on another system.







            share|improve this answer















            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Aug 9 at 5:47


























            answered Aug 7 at 17:22









            RalfFriedl

            1,922213




            1,922213







            • 2




              The kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.
              – Rui F Ribeiro
              Aug 7 at 17:39







            • 17




              To say that Linux was "started as an extension to Minix" is misleading. Yes, it's true that Linus was using Minix at that time, but Linux does not share a single line of code with Minix, and also follows a different design philosophy (microkernel vs. monolithic). Minix was also not officially available for the 386 at that time, whereas the Linux kernel was written for the 386 from the start. Linux's first filesystem was the Minix filesystem, because of compatibility, but this was also a complete reimplementation.
              – Johan Myréen
              Aug 8 at 6:56






            • 10




              Linus, and the author of Minix, both agree that it is not Minix or based on it.
              – ctrl-alt-delor
              Aug 8 at 10:53











            • @JohanMyréen Of course any short text is not the whole truth. Even Wikipedia contains only a short introduction. And I know that Linux was started because of the shortcomings of Minix. If there had been a Minix for i386, there might be no Linux today. On the other hand, Linux was inspired by Minix, and the first file system supported was Minix. But I agree extension is not the correct work, I changed the sentence.
              – RalfFriedl
              Aug 9 at 5:49












            • 2




              The kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.
              – Rui F Ribeiro
              Aug 7 at 17:39







            • 17




              To say that Linux was "started as an extension to Minix" is misleading. Yes, it's true that Linus was using Minix at that time, but Linux does not share a single line of code with Minix, and also follows a different design philosophy (microkernel vs. monolithic). Minix was also not officially available for the 386 at that time, whereas the Linux kernel was written for the 386 from the start. Linux's first filesystem was the Minix filesystem, because of compatibility, but this was also a complete reimplementation.
              – Johan Myréen
              Aug 8 at 6:56






            • 10




              Linus, and the author of Minix, both agree that it is not Minix or based on it.
              – ctrl-alt-delor
              Aug 8 at 10:53











            • @JohanMyréen Of course any short text is not the whole truth. Even Wikipedia contains only a short introduction. And I know that Linux was started because of the shortcomings of Minix. If there had been a Minix for i386, there might be no Linux today. On the other hand, Linux was inspired by Minix, and the first file system supported was Minix. But I agree extension is not the correct work, I changed the sentence.
              – RalfFriedl
              Aug 9 at 5:49







            2




            2




            The kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            Aug 7 at 17:39





            The kernel was being cross-compiled in Minix.
            – Rui F Ribeiro
            Aug 7 at 17:39





            17




            17




            To say that Linux was "started as an extension to Minix" is misleading. Yes, it's true that Linus was using Minix at that time, but Linux does not share a single line of code with Minix, and also follows a different design philosophy (microkernel vs. monolithic). Minix was also not officially available for the 386 at that time, whereas the Linux kernel was written for the 386 from the start. Linux's first filesystem was the Minix filesystem, because of compatibility, but this was also a complete reimplementation.
            – Johan Myréen
            Aug 8 at 6:56




            To say that Linux was "started as an extension to Minix" is misleading. Yes, it's true that Linus was using Minix at that time, but Linux does not share a single line of code with Minix, and also follows a different design philosophy (microkernel vs. monolithic). Minix was also not officially available for the 386 at that time, whereas the Linux kernel was written for the 386 from the start. Linux's first filesystem was the Minix filesystem, because of compatibility, but this was also a complete reimplementation.
            – Johan Myréen
            Aug 8 at 6:56




            10




            10




            Linus, and the author of Minix, both agree that it is not Minix or based on it.
            – ctrl-alt-delor
            Aug 8 at 10:53





            Linus, and the author of Minix, both agree that it is not Minix or based on it.
            – ctrl-alt-delor
            Aug 8 at 10:53













            @JohanMyréen Of course any short text is not the whole truth. Even Wikipedia contains only a short introduction. And I know that Linux was started because of the shortcomings of Minix. If there had been a Minix for i386, there might be no Linux today. On the other hand, Linux was inspired by Minix, and the first file system supported was Minix. But I agree extension is not the correct work, I changed the sentence.
            – RalfFriedl
            Aug 9 at 5:49




            @JohanMyréen Of course any short text is not the whole truth. Even Wikipedia contains only a short introduction. And I know that Linux was started because of the shortcomings of Minix. If there had been a Minix for i386, there might be no Linux today. On the other hand, Linux was inspired by Minix, and the first file system supported was Minix. But I agree extension is not the correct work, I changed the sentence.
            – RalfFriedl
            Aug 9 at 5:49












             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


























             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f461113%2fif-linux-is-only-a-kernel-then-how-were-its-first-versions-used-without-distri%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            Mutual Information Always Non-negative

            Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?