Fedora - DELL ?

[Les Mikesell]

Jim Cornette wrote:

>> An attitude that can only be shared by people who think writing 
>> software is an end in itself, as opposed to the people who try to use 
>> it to do something useful or combine software from different sources 
>> for new capabilities.  And once again - that is exactly what is 
>> keeping Microsoft rich.
> 
> It is simple to get those who do not release the source code to live 
> with a message that the kernel is tainted. 

You seem to have confused the suppliers and consumers in this statement. 
  The users seeing the message have nothing to do with releasing source 
code that they don't own.

> You have no idea what the 
> dilution will do for stability of a system.

Please explain then.  Keep in mind that I have windows machines that 
haven't crashed in years with hardware that Linux doesn't support and 
Macs with 3rd party drivers that are equally stable so I won't believe 
it if you say that can't happen.

> Linux and Microsoft are not close to their goals. Functionality is key 
> for hardware issues in Linux.

Except that it doesn't work with a lot of hardware.  And the engineers 
designing the hardware and writing the drivers for other OS versions are 
probably the best qualified to write and maintain the Linux drivers too. 
They probably would also be the most motivated if the driver interface 
was stable so they didn't have to re-do it all the time.

 > DRM is key for Microsoft in my opinion.

Microsoft thinks there is a demand for DRM so they provide it - it isn't 
something useful on its own.  Personally I think that demand will go 
away by itself except for rental-type distribution models when customers 
realize how limiting it is and the content suppliers that thought it 
would sell find out otherwise - and customers should ultimately decide 
these things.

> Functionality due to license restrictions and proprietary code exists in 
> Linux. This is not due to technical capabilities of the developers 
> though and is more for lawyers.

The practical issue is not the omission of the functional parts with 
legal restrictions, it is the fact that the GPL prohibits others from 
obtaining the legal rights to distribute these missing parts, combining 
them and offering a fully functional product.

> Why BG is so rich  and I am not are different issues. I do not feel it 
> is because of technical innovation but due to strategies not 
> straightforward.

The GPL has the opposite strategy.  It not only can't succeed in 
providing anything that already has different distribution restrictions, 
it prevents itself from being combined with such things.  So Microsoft 
wins by default.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com