Jim Cornette wrote:
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 seem to have confused the suppliers and consumers in this statement.
The users seeing the message have nothing to do with releasing source
code that they don't own.
You have no idea what the
dilution will do for stability of a system.
Please explain then. Keep in mind that I have windows machines that
haven't crashed in years with hardware that Linux doesn't support and
Macs with 3rd party drivers that are equally stable so I won't believe
it if you say that can't happen.
Linux and Microsoft are not close to their goals. Functionality is key
for hardware issues in Linux.
Except that it doesn't work with a lot of hardware. And the engineers
designing the hardware and writing the drivers for other OS versions are
probably the best qualified to write and maintain the Linux drivers too.
They probably would also be the most motivated if the driver interface
was stable so they didn't have to re-do it all the time.
> DRM is key for Microsoft in my opinion.
Microsoft thinks there is a demand for DRM so they provide it - it isn't
something useful on its own. Personally I think that demand will go
away by itself except for rental-type distribution models when customers
realize how limiting it is and the content suppliers that thought it
would sell find out otherwise - and customers should ultimately decide
these things.
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.
The practical issue is not the omission of the functional parts with
legal restrictions, it is the fact that the GPL prohibits others from
obtaining the legal rights to distribute these missing parts, combining
them and offering a fully functional product.
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.
The GPL has the opposite strategy. It not only can't succeed in
providing anything that already has different distribution restrictions,
it prevents itself from being combined with such things. So Microsoft
wins by default.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
