After reading the article, I do think he has a point to some degree. I've seen comments on here that refer to Unix as like the wheel - Linux is simply polishing an already near-perfect idea. This can't be further from the truth. Look at what the article said -- he was disappointed that Stallman chose to pursue an open source version of an OS that was already at the time recognized as being not only old, but flawed. Age isn't the issue - it's idiotic to toss out an idea simply because of age. But flaws and technical reasons are definitely a cause to reconsider things, such as Unix. It would have been nice if he had chosen to open up a more revolutionary idea and push the field ahead instead of stalling it somewhere in the early 1970s. This isn't a unique sentiment. Rob Pike said a similar thing a few years ago at a talk in Utah (http://herpolhode.com/rob/utah2000.pdf) where he lamented that the fixation on Linux/Unix was leading many people to have blinders restricting them to thinking about the world in a very limited, closed-minded way. Rob happens to come from Bell labs where the original Unix creators realized that more was possible than what the Unix model provided, and they created Plan9 and Inferno. The open source model, while good for code freedom, seems to breed more than anything an irrational devotion to specific technologies simply because implementations of them exist for free. Why are people unwilling to consider that there could be better ways to do something, and that Unix/Linux is not the pinnacle of perfection in operating systems and software? I use Linux every day and enjoy it, but wouldn't blink an eye if something better came along and Linux got tossed off my machine.