Re: Linux in a binary world... a doomsday scenario

Greg KH
2005-12-07T05:30:11Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit, Size: 1620 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:23:37AM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> 2005/12/7, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:38:30AM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> > > 2005/12/7, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>:
> > > > And no kernel developers are forcing anyone to use Linux. If they don't
> > > > like it for whatever reasons, there are other alternatives...
> > >
> > > AFAIK, no proprietary software vendors are forcing any1 to buy their
> > > proprietary software. Still you are speaking in a monopoly tone!
> >
> > How is the statement, "If you don't trust the intelligence of the Linux
> > kernel developers, then don't use the Linux kernel." a monopolistic
> > tone?
>
> The fact is Linux supports more hardware now. Some *BSD users turn to
> Linux in order to drive their hardware for the _same_ reason as users
> turn to windows. That is really a monopolistic position.

No, not at all:
mo·nop·o·ly
Function: noun
1 : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by
the power to control prices and exclude competition and that
esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of
superior products or skill.
2 : one that has a monopoly

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

I think our "superior product and skill" is what makes us not a
monopoly :)

Besides, the *BSD developers routinely use our code to write their own
drivers (looking at how things are done) so in the end, having Linux
support a device helps them out too. So the "exclude competition"
portion of the above definition is also false...

thanks,

greg k-h