> There seem be several misconceptions here.
>
> i) The linux kernel is an open source project and the direction of the
> 2.4 series kernel has been discussed, but been generally clear, for some
I don't want to get into a debate here but there is no
"misconception". My point was that Netraverse didn't change the kernel
to break their software, requiring everyone to upgrade - someone else
did. Open or closed, it was not Netraverse. Nevertheless, it is the
kernel that broke the application software, not the other way around.
> ii) 99% of the code areas that win4lin hooks into are essentially
> unchanged (indeed little changed since kernel 1.0 series I think)... so
> this isn't like going from win3x to win9x.
I am afflicted with a disease that actually has me believing what
people like Baxter and Peat have said. Their claim is that they
couldn't engineer the changes with a patch due to what those changes
were. I'm glad you're more aware than I and can make statements as
you have. Maybe they're true; I have no such knowledge other than
what the people who have been helpful to us have said.
> iii) Netraverse should have been well aware of a possible problem area
Again, I'm afflicted with a disease that, when I say "Someone should
have been..." I stop and assess how much I can say with authority
about what they should have known and what they could have done about
it. Again, they have stated that backporting was a problem. I
believe them. Silly me.
> iv) They have a respected product, useful to the greater linux
> community. They should have stated their requirements like all other
> 'informed customers' with specific needs- and of course, been ready to
> contribute possible changes. (This is how the dosemu and wine teams
> would work, I suggest.)
Do you really think Netraverse is significantly large, and doing
sufficient volume to play that game? Maybe they should get out of the
Linux world and go somewhere that people don't expect their software
for free or nearly so. From what you're saying, small companies need
not apply to the software world of Linux. That doesn't bode well for
the Linux world in my opinion.
> v) But they chose not to, and gave everyone the impression that 2.4
> would be a routine upgrade - indeed I suspect they convinced themselves
> of this!
Again, I'm glad you understand the inner workings of Netraverse, right
down to what they 'chose' and 'did.' I do not.
> vi) The conflict here is thus between the open-source, collaborative,
> and closed source, non-collaborative ways of working - (this isn't a
I suppose you're right. I love Linux but struggle with that
open-source model. This is not because of its virtues. It's because
of the sinister "change and advance at all costs" part of that model.
It's because of the "we've got to compete with all the alternatives
but we can't charge any money for it" approach that generates a lot of
half-baked software, bloated interfaces, etc.
> commercial/non-commercial issue - other commercial organisations have
> managed to come to come to terms with open-source development, and
> reaped advantage from it. Recent examples are Corel and wine, Sun &
> Staroffice, IBM and the mwave drivers).
Let's see...Sun Microsystems...Netraverse. Who's bigger? Who can
afford to dump $37 million in expense (cost of buying Staroffice) into
a world as their ticket in? What would be the impact on that
community? Gosh...they're now a player and they don't have to
foresake their core business. Is Netraverse in that same position? I
think not.
> vii) Trelos/Netraverse have often expressed intentions in this
> direction, but then pleaded 'm'learned friends' as getting in the way.
They have but one product. If they're not allowed to make money on it
they don't exist. If all people thought the way some in this
conference do, they wouldn't. Fortunately this doesn't seem to be
true.
Cheers --- Larry
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
