"I've been saying for years that Linux was well along on its way from being the tech fanboy operating system of choice, to becoming one of big business' favorite operating systems. Well, I was right all along, but in 2006, that progress smacked many Linux fans in the face. This is my list of the five most significant changes in Linux this year. They are not changes, however, that many who have embraced Linux in the past will appreciate. Like it or lump it, these are the changes that I also think clearly predict Linux's future in the mainstream."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-11-15
Member since:2006-04-21
Member since:2005-07-06
And how much good is that doing BSD? Is BSD better off in any way with the success of OS X?
And actually, OS X is not doing better than Linux. Linux's desktop market share is roughly comparable to OS X's desktop market share, while its server market share is probably a couple of orders of magnitude larger.
Member since:2005-07-06
MacOSX, which is based on bsd is doing a lot better than linux
It depends on what you look at, in terms of how much better it's doing than Linux.
The problem is, it hasn't done BSD one iota of good. Had BSD used the GPL or a license which stated "OK, you can use this but you can't just surround it with proprietary software. You need to give back" then OS X would have benefitted from the code, but also BSD would have benefitted with code coming back from OS X. OS X would then have benefitted by BSD people working on their code, and it would have snowballed from there.
Member since:2006-01-09
MacOSX, which is based on bsd is doing a lot better than linux
OH, REALLY? Then could you please show me just one Mac on the site where I am right now? I work for a Fortune 500 company (and a big one while we are at it!) with over 5000 employees just on this site alone and I canīt see a single Mac anywhere. Not even one!
How is that a lot better than Linux?
Member since:
2005-07-06
The FSF realized that from the very beginning, and saw the need to replace the entire system with open source software, because any closed-source components would create a point of restriction.
Creating closed software on top isn't really the problem, but relying on any closed software in an open source system is obviously going to force those open source components into things they wouldn't otherwise have to do. Either that or you get a stalemate where nothing can happen.
Binary NVIDIA drivers may enable fancy desktop effects, but it also means that the Linux desktop is entirely beholden to NVIDIA anytime the developers want to change the 3D architecture. While Apple and Microsoft can build their graphics stack the way they want, because they have the source to these drivers, Linux developers must work around these large pieces of code that they cannot modify.
Well pointed out.
You might want to e-mail Jono Bacon with that one, because he seems to think that people who are more adamant on open source drivers are simply idealists. There are sound reasons for being adamant for open source drivers, and simply hoping that some will produced in the future just isn't going to work. Is a manufacturer really going to be motivated when they have some lock-in?
Its easy to confuse this issue, but its not an issue that should be confused. Like any decision, there is cost to using proprietary software in an open system.
Indeed. The integrity of the system is everything, and without it, bits start to fall off as friction ensues. It's one of the reasons why Linux took off as well as it did, at the expense of BSD which apparently allowed closed driver development which some people are arguing for now. Go figure.
Edited 2006-12-19 23:20