On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 21:34 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: > On Sunday 24 December 2006 20:55, J Sloan wrote: > > > ... > > > > No need. Perhaps I was too hasty to dismiss your questions - Each of > > the points you reference above can be easily grasped with just a bit > > of thought, but I hesitate to put a lot of work into explaining all > > these points if you're really determined not to understand. > > On the contrary. I want a discussion that is not dripping with > ambiguity, imagery and allusion and not so laden with emotion. Nothing > good is served by carrying on in that manner. You could call it FUD... > > > > The bottom line is that you apparently see no danger to linux, but I > > do - as for the details, they will have to await another post, when I > > have some time to laboriously explain each of the common terms used > > above. > > In fact, I see no danger to Linux because you cannot destroy an idea. > Linux is too entrenched and too important to far too many individuals > and organizations, including large business concerns, distributed all > over the globe to be allowed to die or be killed.
The quibble I have with this statement is that you missed what I consider to be an essential point, i.e. unlike other OS's that businesses have used in the past e.g. OS2, Linux is open source, hence any set of competent programmers _can_ keep it going. It's open nature, IMO, is proof against easy demise. > Consider the RIM / Blackberry suit. It was resolved because the > technology was just too damn important to too many "important" people > in the U.S. (i.e., people willing to shell out huge bucks to be > distracted by their email at all times in all places) to be allowed to > go dark. The same holds for Linux, only in a much less frivolous way. An interesting take on that. I believe that it was only, all about the money, not about protecting the IP. But then I'm biased in favour of RIM, as they are Canadian. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
