John Chase writes: >Indeed. Windows is about as "open" as the former Soviet Union.
Amen. Re: "Anyone can build a hardware box to run Windows," well, yes, but you must go to Intel or AMD for the chip. So you have a duopoly -- AMD argues a monopoly -- on the component that matters. But software is far more meaningful when talking about openness. I fail to see how anybody could reasonably describe a Windows PC server as "open" and a System z running Linux as not open. It's just plain deceptive. Same goes for HP-UX on Itanium. FWIW, I think IBM still includes lots of TPF source code with that operating system. And mainframe Linux is 100% open source. Most X86-based Linux distributions include closed source device drivers. Words ought to mean something, and I wish the (primarily UNIX) marketers hadn't stolen the word "open." I think it's time to take the word back from the marketers and return it to the English language. I use the term "distributed server" since that's the most neutral-but-descriptive term I know. Maybe there's a better term. - - - - - Timothy Sipples IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
