I know a ton of people (including myself) who didn't buy a stand-alone DVD player because the PS2 would have one. I'm *SURE* it's responsible for a growth of DVD sales.
I'm not certain that being *SURE* is a good substitute for actual statistics.
Costs are one of the issues besides the difficulty in porting windows drivers to linux which many makers do not bother doing.
If only there were some magical pool of experienced labor just waiting to write and maintain, in perpetuity, Linux drivers for any manufacturer of any hardware....
It wasn't until after Linux was accomplishing its goals, did I ever hear a mention of the GNU System.
Linus mentioned GNU in his original release announcement in 1991.
RMS may have intended to make his own operating system, but he did a piss poor job of accomplishing it. Instead, his group focused on the utilities and not the OS. If the goal was truly an OS, then why keep polishing the utilities?
Glibc and binutils and GRUB, for example, aren't utilities. They're integral to a Unix-like OS. They're part of the OS.
Linux is now a popular open source operating system...
Linux is just a kernel! To my knowledge it doesn't even include a bootloader.
True a kernel isn't much without some user-land commands, but the use of said utilities does not in itself warrant refering to Linux as GNU/Linux.
Try an experiment. Build a new PC. Install only the Linux kernel. Try to do anything.
GNU/Linux does not imply that Linux is a combination of GNU utilities and a Linux kernel. It implies that Linux is a product of the FSF.
Why, in your mind, does it not imply that GNU/Linux is the combination of GNU and the Linux kernel? Does the existence of GNU/Solaris imply that Solaris is a project of the FSF? Does the existence of GNU/FreeBSD imply that FreeBSD is a project of the FSF?
A more applicable name would be "Linux powered by GNU"
I could see "GNU powered by Linux".
Linux doesn't need ALL of that software you mentioned (at least once it is compiled;) ).
A GNU system doesn't need Linux either, but try deleting all of the software I mentioned from your favorite Linux distribution and then reboot. Linux alone is not an operating system.
RMS did start the GNU project, which includes adns, autoconf, automake, bash, binutils, bison, coreutils, cpio, Emacs, fileutils, g++, gawk, gcc, gdb, gettext, glibc, GRUB, GNU m4, GNU sysutils, GNU tar, GNUtls, GNU grep, GNU gzip, GNU less, libopts, libtool, GNU make, GNU ncurses, GNU Pth, readline, screen, GNU sed, or shellutils.
All of that software without a kernel is useless. A kernel without this software or the equivalent is useless. ("Useless" here means "useless on a general purpose computing device.")
Why, then, would you not name the resulting operating system GNU/Linux?
You just cannot put your modified software back onto their box as that may enable you to get round their service restrictions, for example.
"Under the terms of the GPL, here's the source code to the software running on this device. We promise that it's the real source code. You'll just have to trust us that it's the real source code, because you can't look at it and you certainly can't modify it on the device itself. Happy hacking!"
Where in the GPLv2 is there any indication that companies have to give you full access to every bit of hardware you purchase, just because it features GPL software?
From the preamble:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have.
TiVo has the right to install the Linux kernel on a TiVo box. As a TiVo customer, should I not also have that right?
It's definitely not as clear as in the GPL v3, but it's possible to argue this point.
If someone sued a company using the GPL because they believed that the Gimp plugin that company authored violated the GPL (because the company included a necessary header), that company would do everything in its power to prevent its plugin from being open sourced...
... such as to stop infringing upon someone else's copyright -- as has occurred in many settlements of GPL violations over the years.
The best part of using SPF, for me, is responding to automated mailers that send me messages saying "Your message to us failed an SPF check!" I always have great fun explaining that failing an SPF check means that they would have a better chance of reaching the person who actually sent the message by picking a random address on a random other domain.
Slashdot Mirror
As the copyright holder, they are completely above board in terms of the GPL. It doesn't apply to them.
I'm not certain that being *SURE* is a good substitute for actual statistics.
Heh. You can safely end that sentence right there.
I wouldn't brag about having psycopathic friends.
No one said it was, but it still gets developed.
Ahh, so NP means No Problem!
It's not really a handout if I paid for the device.
Greg Kroah-Hartman's OLS 2006 Keynote says "We have drivers that I know have only one user, as there was only one piece of hardware ever made for it."
If only there were some magical pool of experienced labor just waiting to write and maintain, in perpetuity, Linux drivers for any manufacturer of any hardware....
Linus mentioned GNU in his original release announcement in 1991.
Glibc and binutils and GRUB, for example, aren't utilities. They're integral to a Unix-like OS. They're part of the OS.
Linux is just a kernel! To my knowledge it doesn't even include a bootloader.
Try an experiment. Build a new PC. Install only the Linux kernel. Try to do anything.
Why, in your mind, does it not imply that GNU/Linux is the combination of GNU and the Linux kernel? Does the existence of GNU/Solaris imply that Solaris is a project of the FSF? Does the existence of GNU/FreeBSD imply that FreeBSD is a project of the FSF?
I could see "GNU powered by Linux".
A GNU system doesn't need Linux either, but try deleting all of the software I mentioned from your favorite Linux distribution and then reboot. Linux alone is not an operating system.
RMS did start the GNU project, which includes adns, autoconf, automake, bash, binutils, bison, coreutils, cpio, Emacs, fileutils, g++, gawk, gcc, gdb, gettext, glibc, GRUB, GNU m4, GNU sysutils, GNU tar, GNUtls, GNU grep, GNU gzip, GNU less, libopts, libtool, GNU make, GNU ncurses, GNU Pth, readline, screen, GNU sed, or shellutils.
All of that software without a kernel is useless. A kernel without this software or the equivalent is useless. ("Useless" here means "useless on a general purpose computing device.")
Why, then, would you not name the resulting operating system GNU/Linux?
"Under the terms of the GPL, here's the source code to the software running on this device. We promise that it's the real source code. You'll just have to trust us that it's the real source code, because you can't look at it and you certainly can't modify it on the device itself. Happy hacking!"
Why would you take issue with RMS naming the project he started?
Don't take that as an example of great Perl code; I counted four likely mistakes in the first program alone.
As them for first-hand evidence that a waterfall project has ever met the needs of its users and ended on time and at budget.
You might not want to try this if you work for NASA. I hear they actually do have one example.
From the preamble:
TiVo has the right to install the Linux kernel on a TiVo box. As a TiVo customer, should I not also have that right?
It's definitely not as clear as in the GPL v3, but it's possible to argue this point.
... such as to stop infringing upon someone else's copyright -- as has occurred in many settlements of GPL violations over the years.
Microsoft certainly does have the right to use GPLd code even if they ignore the license. The GPL only covers distribution.
Corporate project managers aren't people?
Oh, wait....
You're faulting fans of superhero comics for not rethinking their deeply held and well-thought political beliefs?
I mean, I know Civil War isn't Vineland, but....
What's wrong with Monopolight?
postmaster@ doesn't. At least it shouldn't.
The best part of using SPF, for me, is responding to automated mailers that send me messages saying "Your message to us failed an SPF check!" I always have great fun explaining that failing an SPF check means that they would have a better chance of reaching the person who actually sent the message by picking a random address on a random other domain.
When has RMS ever spoken on behalf of the open source community?
Working source code is not part of patent applications. If it were, perhaps software patents would be less vague and less dangerous.