Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

Dave Neuer
2007-06-20T12:57:58Z

On 6/20/07, SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org> wrote:
> On 6/19/07, Dave Neuer <mr.fred.smoothie@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Linux was a tool for UNIX sysadmins and admin wannabes to
> > practice their UNIX chops at home - or a conveniently inexpensive
> > platform on which to run Apache. Companies -- other than Linux
> > distributors -- didn't bet their business on it.
>
> Wrong conclusion. Been there, done that, helped bet the company
> on networks based on Linux servers.

One of thousands, no doubt.

>
> > Apache's success greatly contributed to the corporate acceptance of Linux, IMHO.
>
> Wrong again. Apache was not allowed to distribute strong
> encryption for e-commerce servers over that time frame.

In the US only, and it was easily available for free if people didn't
care about violating patents or you could buy Stronghold from
Covalent. And plenty of folks didn't need encryption or did without it
even if they did.

>
> By the time of Linux 2.0.x,

1996, right? When Linux had just got SMP support, and Apache was
running on a majority of webservers, according to Netcraft?

> it could stay up for years at a
> time even if it was running on garbage. There was no alternative
> even *close*.

You're preaching to the choir about Linux quality. I started using it
in 1997 (to run Apache, on a cast-off i486sx w/ 8 MB ram IIRC), and it
was years before I ever had it crash on me.

My point was about perceptions, not quality -- not that Linux wasn't
good, but that it was not widely considered to be "enterprise class."
For certain uses, Apache was, in a way that was fairly novel for Free
Software.

Anyway, it was also meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek (what's the
emoticon for a tongue in a cheek?) -- anyone who thinks they know the
_one_ reason Linux was successful is on crack (well, it might have
been Linus' accent).

Dave