Re: Fedora - DELL ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux