Re: license v license v /license/
On 1/12/2011 4:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Apple, for example, went proprietary with the freedom provided by BSD contributions in XNU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU Look at Apple now: A niche player in computers, and highly successful with iPods, iPhones and the like. We tend to minimize that with which we disagree. "iOS is derived from Mac OS X, with which it shares the Darwin foundation, and is therefore a Unix-like operating system by nature." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_%28Apple%29 And. . . Boom: Apple Worth More Than Microsoft. http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100526/apple-worth-more-than->microsoft/ Sincerely, RJack :) Capitalism Triumphs! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license v license v /license/
On 2011-01-12, David Kastrup wrote: > RJack writes: > >> On 1/11/2011 5:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>> Why do you think it is that BSD Unix has not held its own in >>> competition with GNU/Linux? >> >> One acronym: IBM. >> >> IBM could not successfully compete with Windows NT with their AIX >> line running on the WinTel PC. Microsoft had screwed over IBM and their >> OS/2. IBM jumped on the Linux bandwagon big time during the SCO debacle >> with RCU, JFS, NUMA etc... This stimulated peripheral driver development >> for PC hardware. The GPL was good at suppressing new commercial >> competition which pleased both IBM and Microsoft. > > So the GPL _did_ please commercial developers, to the degree where IBM The GPL is a great equalizer. A large company can appreciate this as much as some guy in his basement. IBM rightfully realizes that the efforts they put into Free Software can't be used against them in a way they cannot exploit themselves. [deletia] >> Apple, for example, went proprietary with the freedom provided by BSD >> contributions in XNU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU Look at Apple >> now: BSD is not the Apple interface. Their variant of OpenStep is. So talking about how their kernel is libre or how the userland that no user ever sees is libre is a bit meaningless. No one at Apple tries to sell Macs or iPhones based on the fact that you can create shell scripts to get over the limitations of the built in PhoneOS SMS app. Infact, this situation is a great example of why a company like IBM might be loathe to contribute to something like FreeBSD. A company like Apple can come along afterwards and use it to the detriment of IBM. IBM could basically end up giving free labor to the enemy. [deletia] -- If it were really about "being good", then Microsoft would ||| have been put out of business by Apple before the first line of / | \ the Linux kernel was ever written. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license v license v /license/
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack wrote: > On 1/11/2011 5:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Why do you think it is that BSD Unix has not held its own in >> competition with GNU/Linux? > One acronym: IBM. > IBM could not successfully compete with Windows NT with their AIX line > running on the WinTel PC. Microsoft had screwed over IBM and their > OS/2. IBM jumped on the Linux bandwagon big time during the SCO debacle > with RCU, JFS, NUMA etc... This stimulated peripheral driver > development for PC hardware. Linux was steadily growing then even without IBM. I suspect RedHat and SuSE were more important than IBM. Why was Linux growing then, but not BSD? > The GPL was good at suppressing new commercial competition which > pleased both IBM and Microsoft. And Richard Stallman, of course. I suspect that it was MS rather than the GPL which suppressed OS competition, as you note above. > Apple, for example, went proprietary with the freedom provided by BSD > contributions in XNU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU Look at Apple > now: A niche player in computers, and highly successful with iPods, iPhones and the like. > And. . . Boom: Apple Worth More Than Microsoft. > http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100526/apple-worth-more-than-microsoft/ > > > Sincerely, > RJack :) > > Capitalism Always Wins ! -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license v license v /license/
On 1/11/2011 5:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Why do you think it is that BSD Unix has not held its own in competition with GNU/Linux? One acronym: IBM. IBM could not successfully compete with Windows NT with their AIX line running on the WinTel PC. Microsoft had screwed over IBM and their OS/2. IBM jumped on the Linux bandwagon big time during the SCO debacle with RCU, JFS, NUMA etc... This stimulated peripheral driver development for PC hardware. The GPL was good at suppressing new commercial competition which pleased both IBM and Microsoft. Apple, for example, went proprietary with the freedom provided by BSD contributions in XNU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU Look at Apple now: And. . . Boom: Apple Worth More Than Microsoft. http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100526/apple-worth-more-than-microsoft/ Sincerely, RJack :) Capitalism Always Wins ! ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
Re: license v license v /license/
RJack writes: > On 1/11/2011 5:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> Why do you think it is that BSD Unix has not held its own in >> competition with GNU/Linux? > > One acronym: IBM. > > IBM could not successfully compete with Windows NT with their AIX > line running on the WinTel PC. Microsoft had screwed over IBM and their > OS/2. IBM jumped on the Linux bandwagon big time during the SCO debacle > with RCU, JFS, NUMA etc... This stimulated peripheral driver development > for PC hardware. The GPL was good at suppressing new commercial > competition which pleased both IBM and Microsoft. So the GPL _did_ please commercial developers, to the degree where IBM chose to "jump on the Linux bandwagon". As far as I can tell, the points you mention (RCU, JFS, NUMA etc) concern just the Linux kernel and not the GNU userland. So it is really the (GPLed) Linux kernel and not the GNU project that is the focus of IBM according to you. How does this jibe with the GPL supposedly scaring commercial developers? > Apple, for example, went proprietary with the freedom provided by BSD > contributions in XNU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU Look at Apple > now: > > And. . . Boom: Apple Worth More Than Microsoft. > http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100526/apple-worth-more-than-microsoft/ Uh, Microsoft is not really somebody promoting GNU or GPLed software. Apple is earning most of its income via gadgets with embedded operating systems (certainly not via MacOS). And IBM is doing better than ever. > Capitalism Always Wins ! A loaded gun also always wins. -- David Kastrup ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
