Les Mikesell wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
The message could have implied 'value added' instead, to more
accurately describe the situation.
*PLONK*
An attitude that can only be shared by people who think writing software
is an end in itself, as opposed to the people who try to use it to do
something useful or combine software from different sources for new
capabilities. And once again - that is exactly what is keeping
Microsoft rich.
It is simple to get those who do not release the source code to live
with a message that the kernel is tainted. You have no idea what the
dilution will do for stability of a system.
Linux and Microsoft are not close to their goals. Functionality is key
for hardware issues in Linux. DRM is key for Microsoft in my opinion.
Functionality due to license restrictions and proprietary code exists in
Linux. This is not due to technical capabilities of the developers
though and is more for lawyers.
Why BG is so rich and I am not are different issues. I do not feel it
is because of technical innovation but due to strategies not
straightforward.
Jim
--
Versions Incompleted Strangling America (and beyond)
