A retrospective <https://www.zdnet.com/article/linuxs-remarkable-journey-from-one-devs-hobby-to-40-million-lines-of-code-and-counting/> on how the Linux kernel project got to where it is today. Quotes: “We're always building on the kernel, despite the fact that a lot of things were happening in the world over these three decades. We had the dotcom crash in 2000. We had the SCO lawsuit. In 2008, there was the global economic crisis. And of course, we had the COVID pandemic. But you don't really see an effect on the development speed of Linux from any of these events. We have somehow managed to sustain everything we can do despite all the stuff that has happened in the world.” ... Of course, for years, no one took Linux seriously. It was dismissed as a toy in an era when Unix fragmentation and the rise of Windows NT dominated industry thinking. The prevailing wisdom held that only large corporations could build operating system kernels, leaving little attention for a community-driven initiative. Yet, as Corbet noted, Linux exemplified Clayton Christensen's concept of disruptive innovation: a technology dismissed as inferior that quietly matures until it overtakes established players. Why did the BSDs lose their early lead? Another factor, Corbet explained, was that in the early 1990s, the BSD Unix systems were much more mature than Linux; they were capable of doing more and were more usable. Still, their permissive BSD license model led to a whole bunch of forks. None of them gained the critical mass in terms of either the development community or adoption to dominate Linux. Instead, the Linux kernel stayed one thing. It stayed together, in part because its GPLv2 copyright policy meant everybody retains their copyright under the same license. Some other open-source projects (including GNU) insist that contributors sign a “Contributor Licence Agreement”, turning over their copyright to some official body in charge of the project. The Linux kernel does not, and there are others that don’t.