We now know that Linux is famous and all, so contributing to the kernel project is the best thing to do, but my question is about the history. The version one of linux was nothing but a small program written by Torvalds to learn about OSs. The people who then started contributing code did so out of selflessness without any regard for money, but apparently only out of academic interest and a respect for its founder, Linus. But then, Linus wasn't as popular then as now, was he? Nor was he a dictator whom everyone was obliged to obey. Then what made people obey him? In other words, I am trying to search that one vital ingredient that makes a FOSS project take off and survive its initial critical stage. The critical stage is very important as many FOSS projects don't take off and just wither away in this stage (Github is full of many such projects).

Almost the same thing could be said about Guido Van Rossum with regard to the Python project.

Timing and competence. Linus and Guido are competent which inspires confidence in the project. Also benevolent dictator style project management matters. Otherwise things devolve.

Timing because people were unhappy with the current situation.

1 members found this post helpful.

Er, people contributed to Linux "apparently only out of academic interest and a respect for its founder"? Is that "apparent" to you? Really? I thought that at least some of them might have been motivated by a desire to run Unix (or something very similar to it) on PCs. The contributors would have been immersed in Unix as part of their academic backgrounds, and PCs were the most available home computers at the time.

I can think of two vital ingredients. The projects fulfilled a need (or desire) that other people had, and the people who started them didn't abandon them.

There isn't a "critical stage" that's more important than any other though.

2 members found this post helpful.

It is an interesting history, and as Rinndalir said "Timing and competence."
Equally fascinating is the story of Bill Gates and his MS-DOS and QDOS (the "Quick and Dirty Operating System") which turned into many billions of dollars. There I think instead of "Timing and competence" it was more "Timing and connections."

1 members found this post helpful.

Not to mention the story Brendan Eich and JavaScript. I keep meaning to listen to this:

https://devchat.tv/js-jabber/124-jsj...h-brendan-eich

It wouldn't hurt to mention that linux started as a Minix-clone (minus the multikernel architecture).

Not relevant to the question. Because the inspiration was there for anyone to take and use. So hindsight is a big fail here.

And trace minix back, etc., etc.

I would phrase that the textbook case of the confluence of "opportunity" with "ruthless greed" and "absence of moral restraint".

Small porject got big when it was chosen by GNU for their OS (as HURD wasn't at all usable then and BSD faced legal issues). Linus did nothing special.

Agreed, anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the advent of personal computers would know that. To quote Mr. Jobs from the biography by Isaacson, "with Bill, it was always about the money".

Look at Facebook--it's a lot about timing and not always so much about actually being a useful tool.

Check out this discussion from 1994 Linux vs NeXTSTEP--NeXTSTEP was growing in some circles. Today it's just history....

When Linus Torvalds did his "little winter-time project," the time was right for an operating-system project that would be completely open and shared. ("HURD is a turd ...") And so, it became a classic example of "a rising tide lifts all boats."

Software is an extremely expensive thing to develop, but cooperative software development has clearly demonstrated how it can amortize the prodigious cost. The trick is that no one claims exclusive rights, and, by established law, no one can. Courts of law around the world have established that licenses such as GPL are enforceable.