Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3103 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] The Linux Uprising(OT)
- From: Mark Stahlke <mstahlke@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 11:23:46 -0700
- Message-id: <20030223181659.1E14F142DF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Sunday 23 February 2003 05:28, James Mohr wrote:
> On Friday 21 February 2003 22:58, Fred A. Miller wrote:
> > http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_09/b3822601_tc102.htm
>
> Now that was definately a fun read.
I laughed when I read this article. It contains some of the most inaccurate
Linux reporting I've seen in a long time.
Some examples:
"Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its
tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux."
Where can I get one of these "Linux chips"? Linux was made for Intel chips,
not the other way around. One could argue that Intel has never made chips for
Linux or that Intel has always made chips for Linux. Actually, both are true.
"Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in
which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it."
Not even close. I can't image where the author got this idea.
"The biggest risks are intellectual-property issues. SCO Group, holder of the
original patents for Unix software upon which Linux is based, has announced
plans to form a licensing division and hire superlawyer David Boies to press
its claims against sellers of Linux."
SCO's IP in this case is nothing more than a couple of compatability
libraries for running Unix programs on Linux.
One more:
"It ultimately is a question about whether societies are going to value
intellectual property or not,"
Given the explosive growth of P2P file sharing, I think this question has
already been answered with a resounding "Not!"
Shamefully inaccurate reporting, all in all. Sadly, this is the kind of FUD
about Linux that is being fed to the mainstream business people.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Powered by SuSE Linux
Just Say No To Windows
> On Friday 21 February 2003 22:58, Fred A. Miller wrote:
> > http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_09/b3822601_tc102.htm
>
> Now that was definately a fun read.
I laughed when I read this article. It contains some of the most inaccurate
Linux reporting I've seen in a long time.
Some examples:
"Second, Intel Corp., the dominant maker of processors for PCs, loosened its
tight links with Microsoft and started making chips for Linux."
Where can I get one of these "Linux chips"? Linux was made for Intel chips,
not the other way around. One could argue that Intel has never made chips for
Linux or that Intel has always made chips for Linux. Actually, both are true.
"Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in
which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it."
Not even close. I can't image where the author got this idea.
"The biggest risks are intellectual-property issues. SCO Group, holder of the
original patents for Unix software upon which Linux is based, has announced
plans to form a licensing division and hire superlawyer David Boies to press
its claims against sellers of Linux."
SCO's IP in this case is nothing more than a couple of compatability
libraries for running Unix programs on Linux.
One more:
"It ultimately is a question about whether societies are going to value
intellectual property or not,"
Given the explosive growth of P2P file sharing, I think this question has
already been answered with a resounding "Not!"
Shamefully inaccurate reporting, all in all. Sadly, this is the kind of FUD
about Linux that is being fed to the mainstream business people.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Powered by SuSE Linux
Just Say No To Windows
| < Previous | Next > |