But ... I object to the attitude of many Linux advocates here who believe that Torvalds wrote his kernel in a vacuum -- without any influences and without the help of a reference model such as MINIX. I don't know why they have such a difficult time admitting the obvious. I believe that they think that admitting it will cheapen Linux in some way; whereas, in their minds, they've imparted some kind of god-like status on Torvalds which isn't fitting.
But ideology dies hard.
I don't think that it's so much ideology, as much as terminology. You're right, of course, that Linus didn't do the work he did in a vacuum, but at the same time, calling what he did an "adaptation" isn't quite right either. Here are the facts... 1) Linus DID write the code for the kernel. 2) Many consider the kernel to the the OS itself, i.e. Linux. 3) As he did NOT use existing code and modify it (which would be an example of an adaptation), calling what he did an "adaptation" isn't what he did. OTOH, if you use a "literary" definition of "adaptation," then yes, Linus adapted the ideas and concepts to Linux.
Linus came up with a "work-alike" OS. This really isn't that different than another *IX work-alike (sort of) known as MS-DOS.
The key is that he took classes that informed him as to what makes up a "good" OS. He then wrote a kernel that took advantage of those features. But remember, that the kernel is NOT the same as "Linux," however, for the collection of software that's known as "Linux" to really BE Linux, it needs that kernel. And also remember that the kernel has interfaces to things like libraries and file-systems. And there's no such thing as an OS that magicly springs out of the ground. As we saw (and you state) the original version of the Linux kernel was distributed in source code format. Linus publicly stated that Minix was needed to compile the code. And it depended on the Minix file systems and other support. But eventually, Linus and many others added Linux specific features, allowing the actual Minix features to be eliminated. Does that mean that they didn't use the best features of things like the file system? Hell no! If you've got something that you know works, why start from scratch? Did David Cutler and friends start from scratch with NTFS? No! They simply improved upon HPFS.
So there is some reason to say that Linus "invented" Linux. Without the Linux kernel, there is no Linux. On the other hand, since AIX was based on the Carnagie-Mellon MACH kernel, using that same sort of reasoning, one could say that CM "invented" AIX. And that doesn't quite fit either.
Again, the problem here is simply one of terminology.
Mark
Who are "they?" I'm really curious, since I've seen no posts by anyone here stating that, or even implying it.