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: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:2006-04-21
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.
If Microsoft and their lackies think 25-year-old technology represents today's state of the art, no wonder the company's products are so laughably execrable.
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:2005-08-12
Member since:2005-08-18
"Linux may be indirectly modeled after Unix"
It is modeled directly after Unix and Minix.
"There's a reason that you can't get the newest desktop software for Unix/BSD...it's not a flexible desktop OS."
I must be imagining myself typing this on the latest KDE on OpenBSD then. And lets not even mention DesktopBSD or PC-BSD.
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:2005-07-02
and then use that stolen IP against the very company they stole it off.
Reverse-engineering is *not* stealing IP. It isn't in the US, nor is it in Australia. That's a blatant lie.
Linux copied the desktop paradigm, but so did Windows and Mac OS.
Copying ideas (and improving on them) is not only legal, it is *good*! Why do you think Microsoft does it all the time?
Why else would you need or want NTFS in Linux ?? if it was not to take MS Windows users away from MS.
How about rescuing the data on an NTFS disk from a Linux system? How about sharing data between the two OSes on a dual-boot machine?
Are you going to say that the Ext2 and Ext3 drivers available for Windows are also examples of "stealing IP"?
BTW, Microsoft *itself* said that it wanted to improve interoperability between *nix systems and Windows...didn't you get the memo?
I swear, can any anti-Linux troll actually post *factual* information once in while??
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.