Let's say you ran a large, profitable company like IBM. You're risking a lot in supporting something like Linux. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the silver bullet of all IT, and it is not the most stable operating system in existence (nor even close). Would you not want to have a little quality control?
Granted, it's not your father's IBM anymore, but my experiences with IBM have been that they try to make good products and try to support them well. (unlike some other software companies <personal opinion>MS, CA</personal opinion>) Neither am I an IBM bigot. I've dealt with them doing their fair share of stupid things, but when it comes down to it, if they want to take measures to ensure a better product, then I'm all for it. However, if you want to shake salt on them for trying to ensure that Linux looks good and runs well, then that's your business. --Brad -----Original Message----- From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LCS drivers for 2.4.9 ? > It is a question of how IBM can not only reduce their own costs (to currently > produce a separate driver for a subset of kernels of interest to their > customers), but also make sure that the driver exists for all kernels that their > customers run. Looks to me like it is a win/win situation for IBM to fix this, > and a lose/lose to not... You are naively assuming IBM wishes their customers to be able to run kernels that IBM haven't sanctified. IBM seems to be handling OCO rather intentionally as a way to ensure they have a firm grip on the testicles of their customers Alan
