Nah. If Linux was never invented, this would just be the 20th time in a row someone declared it to be “the year of BSD on the desktop”.

And there would have been a Beastie Racer.

If not some version of BSD, we might be using Minix or perhaps Hurd.

This, I feel like Linux was just sexier for kernel devs, robbing Hurd of potential support

I don’t know anything about Hurd besides GNU working on it when Linux came out. What was sexier about Linux? Was Hurd any good?

I don't know how "sexier" has anything to do with the topic.

Linux was available now. Hurd ... was not. Still isn't.

Hurd is based on a microkernel architecture, which was/is enticing because (quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd ), "In theory the microkernel design would allow for all device drivers to be built as servers working in user space" and "According to Hurd developers, the main advantage of microkernel-based design is the ability to extend the system: developing a new module would not require in depth knowledge of the rest of the kernel, and a bug in one module would not crash the entire system."

There is a long debate about microkernel vs monolithic kernel. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel for one such summary.

Like everyone else is saying. This is silly. Another open source kernel and OS would’ve taken Linux’s place.

An easier example is Git. If Git wasn’t made. Or perhaps it was made by an unknown and thus didn’t gain traction, the world would be pretty close to how it is now. Another DVCS like Hg would’ve been widely used or a split of a few. However it would’ve ended up, the world would be, relatively speaking, the same.

NooooOooOOoOoooOOOOooooOoooooooo :'(

We'd be all on win :((((

Joke aside : BSD would probably at it's place - one thing that we could advocate as being unique to unix is it's viral open license system

> unique to unix is it's viral open license system

GNU is not Unix