Not to argue about a joke but Linux was ‘better’ because it was free, not because it was technically better. By the time it got actually better than UNIX tons of people have worked on it, not just couple of drunk guys. I think someone just misread what the article says and missed the ‘not’ in ‘need not be expensive’. But if people find it funny it’s cool, it’s not for me to judge anyone’s sense of humour.
I think you should really ask around about product usage scenarios especially in Redhat/SUSE scenes. Linux is either same price or more expensive than Windows.
I think you say Minix was better but let me remind that it’s creator himself says it was created for a very different purpose and still does it well. Its version 3 runs whole Intel World so it may have even “won”
I worked in TV industry and I knew some very high end studios. The amazingly expensive software they use needs a very reliable system without any kind of vendor lock in. They choose RHEL or SUSE on tested, certified hardware. OS price is just a small detail, like coffee machine supplies.
I have worked with very high end Microsoft Windows servers too. Did you know that their browser default homepage is MSN, not about:blank and it actually triggered Flash ActiveX install? I begun to see Windows like abuse of Dave Cutler’s kernel. No less.
I think someone just misread what the article says and missed the ‘not’ in ‘need not be expensive’.
You’ve missed the second part of that sentence - ‘UNIX can run on hardware costing as little as $40,000’. The photo is the Finnish hacker making it work on a computer that cost a fraction of that, while drinking a beer. It’s a play on the hold my beer meme.
Not to argue about a joke but Linux was ‘better’ because it was free, not because it was technically better. By the time it got actually better than UNIX tons of people have worked on it, not just couple of drunk guys. I think someone just misread what the article says and missed the ‘not’ in ‘need not be expensive’. But if people find it funny it’s cool, it’s not for me to judge anyone’s sense of humour.
Personally, it’s amusing at best. In the same way as the girl in Jurassic Park using “Unix” to hack the system.
That being said, I still give mad props for the development that occurred during that era.
I think you should really ask around about product usage scenarios especially in Redhat/SUSE scenes. Linux is either same price or more expensive than Windows.
I think you say Minix was better but let me remind that it’s creator himself says it was created for a very different purpose and still does it well. Its version 3 runs whole Intel World so it may have even “won”
I worked in TV industry and I knew some very high end studios. The amazingly expensive software they use needs a very reliable system without any kind of vendor lock in. They choose RHEL or SUSE on tested, certified hardware. OS price is just a small detail, like coffee machine supplies.
I have worked with very high end Microsoft Windows servers too. Did you know that their browser default homepage is MSN, not about:blank and it actually triggered Flash ActiveX install? I begun to see Windows like abuse of Dave Cutler’s kernel. No less.
You’ve missed the second part of that sentence - ‘UNIX can run on hardware costing as little as $40,000’. The photo is the Finnish hacker making it work on a computer that cost a fraction of that, while drinking a beer. It’s a play on the hold my beer meme.