The title of the article seems familiar to you? Naturally it would, when you read something like this. But I do state the corresponding sentence isn't even grammatically correct, thereby making it difficult for me to parody. I am sure that Linux is not close to extinction but is rather gaining momentum or at least holding its ground.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-12-05
I think you were right, with some corollaries.
Linux was essentially written with the goal of copying Unix. It's like spaghetti was originally made with the goal of copying Chinese noodles. Now you wouldn't call spaghetti a copy today would you?
Next, I don't think Linux copies from Microsoft at all. In fact, I would argue it the other way around. Microsoft does not "embrace & extend"; it's strategy is "copy & market until people don't realize it's not original." I distinctly recall a Microsoft executive or someone affiliated with Microsoft claiming that the company invented the operating system. Pull a person off the street and ask them who invented the operating system; I guarantee the majority will tell you Microsoft.
Member since:2005-07-10
Linux does copy a lot from Microsoft or general OS concepts. In fact there is hardly a kernel level innovation that is done by Linux and it has been mostly behind in implementing kernel level features as compared to solaris or Windows.
Example: M:N thread support, Well defined driver model, Asynchrnous IO in kernel etc etc. You should read "A tale of two kernels" by Mark Russinovich.
Member since:2005-11-10
Next, I don't think Linux copies from Microsoft at all. In fact, I would argue it the other way around.
Microsoft doesn't have to copy from Linux. MS had its own Unix called Xenix some 25 years ago and it was the most popular Unix for desktop PCs, so I would say they hardly need Linux to copy from.
Member since:2006-08-01
I'm sorry but I don't agree. Linux may be indirectly modeled after Unix (Unix->Minix->Linux) but that's as far as it goes. Linux has continued to evolve and Unix has for the most part stagnated. Not saying that Unix is bad, I think it's a fantastic system and once you have it configured and running it doesn't require much tinkering, because it's a server OS; Always has been, always will be. Lets face it. If you throw a fancy desktop environment on Unix you may be able to get it to work on that particular model of machine, but try making it run on anything else. There's a reason that you can't get the newest desktop software for Unix/BSD...it's not a flexible desktop OS.
If Linux were just a carbon copy of Unix, there is no way that it would have turned into the incredibly fast, secure, powerful, and flexible system that we have today. A system that is capable of being a mission critical server and the same time, desktop oriented enough for me to type this comment on.
Member since:2006-12-07
your a joke, you think linux did not "copy" NTFS, or reverse-engineer/copy the Windows API's. ???
linux copied Unix so they could gain market share of Unix uners.
Once they did that, they changed their target to windows. as windows and MS are a successful model for an operating system, and application suite.
therefore, next thing you see, is linux "desktop", OpenOffice.
Was it "just by accident" that you ".doc" format is exactly the same as what MS developed, by paying programmers ??
this is a joke, its pointless saying Linux does not copy the good work from everyone else.
and then use that stolen IP against the very company they stole it off.
Why else would you need or want NTFS in Linux ?? if it was not to take MS Windows users away from MS.
You saw something good, and popular, so you copy it, and give it away.
and wonder why the company you stole off, gets upset. 
Member since:2006-02-06
There's only one way to achieve something, that is why in Evolution eyes have evolved several times independent from each other, and why scientists think that on a planet with similar conditions like on earth a species with similar biology to man would again evolve as the dominant (intelligent? not so sure about this) one.
There aren't that many ways to interact with a computer outside a console, and to implement a GUI if that's what you want and it does not mean implementing one is copying MS or Apple.
BTW why do so many on here seem obsessed with market share? I always see these figures quoted but the reality is even only 2% of a global desktop market will quite likely be millions of machines which is significant enough and self sustainable. Linux type developers are clearly passionate enough not to ever let up coding what they care about without getting paid and distros like Debian or Slackware will never go away even though commercial Linux might one day.
I do not care about market share and please, people like NotParker, stop banging on about figures. They indicate trends AT BEST and frankly, the less Linux usage out there the longer we can continue to leave virii and malware to Redmond's OS - no hard feelings.
For the people who like to use something they consider technologically superior or just more flexible and suitable to their needs and liking.
IT IS ABOUT CHOICE - NOT ABOUT WHO 'WINS'.
Member since:
2005-11-10
Now the author seems to think that Linux is simply copying Microsoft on everything. That’s not true.
Of course it is not. Linux is copying Unix, too.
Linux is not losing a war or even fighting one
Well it is not winning a war either, that's for sure (according to the market share numbers).
You don't win by simply copying the stuff and that is exactly what Linux does, no matter how hard you deny it. They simply copy everything from Unix and Windows, all the time. Great ideas should be copied, no problems here with that, but the thing is --- they don't do it well. Microsoft does it really well ("embrace & extend").