nothingnothing

Not bad at all. Pretty good even.

Maybe a comparision between Windows / Linux (not too big) and reasons why some like it and others don't? You can also write about Linux in the future, the systems it will be expected to be used for, stuff like that... Just some ideas, no need to use them.

You can say that Minix was written by Andrew Tannenbaum and that he didn't like Linus's monolithic architecture. Somewhere on here someone posted a link to a usenet argument between Linus and Andrew on the subject.
The GNU project, I believe was aiming to build an open source OS but lacked a suitable kernel as the hurd wasn't ready. Linux offered a drop in replacement for it. This is what I remember and how I understand it, but I would research GNU/Hurd if I were you first.
What about mentioning what open source is? Linux on the desktop and competition for microsoft? What about showing indications of stability by saying that something like (obviously find some accurate source) 60% of internet servers run on Unix variants including BSD and Linux?
1500 isn't very much to write about a whole OS, and yet you've written a whole paragraph about Tux.

Also there is no apostrophe in "Its" in the sentence "..and thus is the main reason for it's stability."

Moved: Asking others to read your papers for school belong in General, not Linux - General where technical questions are to be asked and answered.

And if your mainly talking about the history of Linux.. why would you bring up Debian, Gentoo, SuSE and Knoppix? I can see Debian mentioned since its been around quite a while but surely Slackware and Redhat should be mentioned. Slackware is the oldest distribution that is still currently being maintained and Redhat is one of the many factors Linux got noticed by corporations and commercialized.

But your paper drifts too much.. If you want to stick to Linux, talk about Linux and maybe make a brief mentioning of the GPL. It just seems your paper first talks about Linux, the creator, then the GPL and then Tux, the mascot and logo for Linux. You should try to get more detailed on something more specific and I wouldn't make paragraphs in regards to those Distro's you mentioned. But perhaps you could write your paper in more specific detail in regards to one of them...

Truthfully, I'm not a professor but I'd say your paper is on its way to getting a C in my own opinion. With a few modifications, more specifics on Linux and not going into detail about those distro's, could be a better paper.

Regards.

nothingnothing

One thing that bothered me somewhat was that it gave the impression like the Linux install still was a lenghty and complicated process. With distros like Mandrake, you can install it under an hour with everything happening pretty simply and with a clear GUI installer and it sets up KDE automatically. I don't think any windows user has any trouble working with KDE even if they're completely unfamiliar with Linux before. You do say that "until recently" it's been complicated, but I'd still suggest you make it more clearer what it is today.

You might want to make mention of KDE, Gnome and X11.

I suppose I would have to ask about the intent of the paper. Is it intended to describe the history of Linux? If so, I might suggest outlining it's growth and development from a "geek" distro used as a teaching tool to the modern desktop oriented OS.

Just a thought.