On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:40:07 -0800, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > begin quoting Todd Walton as of Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:23:47PM -0800: > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:53:58 -0800, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > [snip] > > > That's an argument for MSWindows. So I don't accept that line of > > > reasoning. Employees can surely _learn_. > > > > The debate is between Linux and BSD. One or more variables may rule > > out choosing Windows or OpenSolaris, even if they do excel in a > > particular area. It's still valid to choose between Linux and BSD > > based on their performance in that particular area. > > Sorry, I don't agree. > > It's hypocritical to dismiss the arguments against you and to then turn > around and use those same arguments against another. > > The debate is between Linux and BSD... but it has been between MSwindows > and Linux in the past. Redmond claims that MSwindows is what people are > used to and therefore this Linux stuff isn't as suitable... and this is > not accepted by the Linux community. Rather, it's pointed out that the > employer won't have much trouble training their employees to the new > system.
I can't speak for all Linux advocates, but that's slightly skewed from what I think is (or should be) actually being said. Who ever said it's not much trouble to re-train new employees? The market shows otherwise, and anybody with any sort of responsibility for these kinds of things will tell you. Of course there's re-training costs. The message is that those re-training costs are far surpassed by the benefits open source brings if you know how to use it. That's what the issue is in this BSD v. Linux discussion. Tracy said that MP3.com made the decision to go with Linux instead of BSD in part because Linux-skilled people were more plentiful. If this were the *only* criterion by which to choose an operating system, then you're right. It would have made more sense to go with Windows. But that *wasn't* the only criterion. There are many criteria that apply, some of them more important than others. But having relative importance does not mean that only the most important should be considered. Failing to recognize this is perhaps part of the problem with your belief that alternatives have inherent value. > > > I suspect that's partly due to the GPL "you use it we own it" nature. > > > > What do you mean? Wouldn't the "you use it we own it" nature move > > them towards BSD, and not the other way around? > > No. The drivers are GPL, and the viral nature of the GPL means that BSD > can't leverage those drivers; yet Linux can leverage code from BSD-land. > It's an unequal exchange. Oh, I see what you mean. You're probably right. > > > Really, having an alternative -- a healthy alternative -- is good in > > > and of itself. > > > > La la la.... > > The final argument of of the zealot. :) Your failure to understand my argument does not constitute error on my part, and the ad hominem will not help you with understanding. > -Stewart "You hum so musically. Lots of practice, I presume?" Stremler That's pretty funny. -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
