[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: license v license v /license/
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: license v license v /license/ |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:16:22 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) |
In gnu.misc.discuss RJack <user@example.net> 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).
Re: license v license v /license/, David Kastrup, 2011/01/11
Re: license v license v /license/, owl, 2011/01/11