The writer of the arcle misses the entire point of why Linux is so strong. Simply put, it is because it's not controlled by a single corporation.
Having seen Linux develop since the days before before the 1.0 kernel, it is amusing to see it morph from a "computer hobbyists toy" OS to an "industrial strength" OS. Or at least that's what the mainstream IT press would have you believe. I don't buy it. To me, Linux has always been my choice and passion. They just can't accept the fact that Linux is what is
I think what frustrates the IT press thinks that the "Johnny Come Latelys", aka IBM, Oracle, HP, et.al. are not in control. Linus is. Believe me I appreciate the corporate support, but not having it around at the start didn't hurt Linux one bit. Nor if they "packed their toys up" and left, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Linux would keep on being developed.
As far as accountability goes, does anyone else see the statement:
"VARs are reluctant because they don't see a clear channel. They don't see a Microsoft or strong corporate company saying, 'We're going to be here forever"
as just good old fashioned FUD, or maybe just innacurate. People thought DEC would be around forever, or maybe that Montgomery Ward would be around forever, or maybe "insert your your favorite company that isn't in business anymore" here. Linus said very clearly when asked how Linux would survive if he were hit by a bus that "I would wouldn't care, as I would be dead." Simply put Linux is more than Linus. More than Alan Cox. More than anyone else. Dare I say it - Linux just is. That's more than any corporation can promise.
-dan
P.S. Since when has corporate backing == accountability? Has anyone ever won an IT related lawsuit related to suitability to task. If so, please let me know me I've got a few companies in mind.
I think MSFT actually believes this. Consider that MS morphed Java into a COM producing language. The rest of the market went over to CORBA with Java as middleware. In the MS grand scheme, it really means that they have one less language to "COMify", ".NETify", and support.
In a way, MS is now able to concentrate C#. Maybe that's what they wanted all along.
Slashdot Mirror
Having seen Linux develop since the days before before the 1.0 kernel, it is amusing to see it morph from a "computer hobbyists toy" OS to an "industrial strength" OS. Or at least that's what the mainstream IT press would have you believe. I don't buy it. To me, Linux has always been my choice and passion. They just can't accept the fact that Linux is what is
I think what frustrates the IT press thinks that the "Johnny Come Latelys", aka IBM, Oracle, HP, et.al. are not in control. Linus is. Believe me I appreciate the corporate support, but not having it around at the start didn't hurt Linux one bit. Nor if they "packed their toys up" and left, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Linux would keep on being developed.
As far as accountability goes, does anyone else see the statement:
as just good old fashioned FUD, or maybe just innacurate. People thought DEC would be around forever, or maybe that Montgomery Ward would be around forever, or maybe "insert your your favorite company that isn't in business anymore" here. Linus said very clearly when asked how Linux would survive if he were hit by a bus that "I would wouldn't care, as I would be dead." Simply put Linux is more than Linus. More than Alan Cox. More than anyone else. Dare I say it - Linux just is. That's more than any corporation can promise.-dan
P.S. Since when has corporate backing == accountability? Has anyone ever won an IT related lawsuit related to suitability to task. If so, please let me know me I've got a few companies in mind.
In a way, MS is now able to concentrate C#. Maybe that's what they wanted all along.