On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 19:05 +0100, Peter Farrow wrote:
> BTW, several list members indicated that Linux itself was an intern
> project.
>
> Well actually that's not true either!
That is hair splitting at it's finest ... Linus may not have been an
intern ... so it was not necessarily an intern project. He was a college
student and wrote the OS as a hobby. Linux started as a hobby OS,
nothing more.
Some quotes from Linus's first public post about Linux:
"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones."
AND
"...it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as
that's all I have :-("
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/browse_thread/thread/76536d1fb451ac60/b813d52cbc5a044b?lnk=gst&q=&rnum=32#b813d52cbc5a044b
Peter, using your logic, Linux is not worthy to be installed ... I mean,
the designer of the kernel says it is just a hobby.
Why on earth would anybody base their Enterprise on that?
I think we can all agree, except for maybe (Paul Allen, Steve Balmer,
and Bill Gates) that the Linux kernel (and GNU / Linux OS) is a little
more than that now.
Why? Because many people and companies (ie RedHat, Debian, SuSE, etc.)
have taken the Linux kernel produced enterprise level software with it.
Part of that Enterprise level software is a hobby designed kernel ...
another part is a former intern project for ACL security called SELinux.
How does either of those facts make either the Linux kernel or SELinux
an less enterprise ready or make either of them bad?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
