On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 08:11 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: > On Monday 25 December 2006 07:10, Mike McMullin wrote: > > ... > > > > > > 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. > > I don't see how your quibble is even opposed to what I wrote. I'm > arguing that Linux is not at risk for becoming extinct.
We're agreeing in a different vein. You're right about the entrenchment, but even OS2 was entrenched to a degree, (I'm thinking of Diebold ATM's in particular), but went away and will stay that way as it's source is locked away. That's not how Linux is being done, so I'm seeing a longer life span. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
