Linked by fvillanustre on Fri 6th May 2011 22:19 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y When comparing the evolution in market share of Linux and OpenBSD, two operating systems that were born around the same time, a question comes to mind: why is there such a difference in market penetration? Linux, on one side of the spectrum, with a license that supposedly impairs commercial venues, has enticed companies and organizations to adopt and support it under varying commercial models, while the BSD derivatives (FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD), with a larger history and an allegedly more commercial friendly license haven't been as successful to gather a large installed base and widespread adoption.
Permalink for comment 472150
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Because....
by karunko on Sat 7th May 2011 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Because...."
Member since:

"Because there is no comercial interest in developing your code with a license that allows your competitors to grab your code, build something on top of it, publish a competig product and not release the changes that the competitor made.

Tell that to Juniper, IronPort etc etc.

Not to mention that little thing called OS X. I've heard it's doing pretty well...

More in general, I would say that the premise of the article is wrong: since Linux has more market share (really?) and definitely more buzz around it, then it must be because of the different license and not, say, for a lot of other reasons that have been mentioned here.

And, since we're talking about market share, then surely Windows must have an even better license? ;-)


Reply Parent Score: 5