JEDIDIAH <jedi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On 2006-10-15, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:26:14 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Toppling Linux
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| The free Linux operating system set off one of the biggest revolutions in
>>>| the history of computing when it leapt from the fingertips of a Finnish
>>>| college kid named Linus Torvalds 15 years ago. Linux now drives $15
>>>| billion in annual sales of hardware, software and services, and this
>>>| wondrous bit of code has been tweaked by thousands of independent
>>>| programmers to run the world's most powerful supercomputers, the latest
>>>| cell phones and TiVo video recorders and other gadgets...
> This is more accurately described as Linux toppling the FSF.
> The "open source" crowd greatly outnumbers the "free software"
> crowd and had for quite a number of years now. The nature of free software
> being what it is, the open source crowd could decide to "fork the whole thing"
> and make RMS completely irrelevant.
I guess that as soon as the "proprietary is fine" crowd have created
their own compiler tool-chain, libc and so on, then they'll be able to
create some shells, editors, and such like, then they can create some
filesystem drivers, terminal emulators, and so on, then perhaps they'll
be able to replace the GPLed stuff with stuff which can be stolen. Oh
yeah - no need - BSD does that. RMS should've been irrelevant years
ago, so why wasn't he?
The question you need to consider is that if BSD were seen as so
important an alternative to the GPL, then why don't big companies invest
in it? They're happy to take the code and make money from it, but they
do /not/ reinvest in development. Where code is GPLed, they /do/
reinvest in development.
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Of course you can't flap your arms and fly to the moon. After a while you'd
run out of air to push against.