To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Linux isn't just the kernel. glibc has different development team than the kernel has. And some distribution started using eglibc.
coreutils have once again, a different bunch of developers.
The worst thing is, the distributions themself make very little changes to the code. e.g. they don't delete code they don't need.
There is no one who has a final say on things. You could argue that would be the package maintainers. But they tend to be really bad at understanding/reading/writing the code.
Right, linux IS just the kernel. Then that makes this entire article and debate pointless and stupid, since the author tried comparing two "operating systems". Then again, linux and the BSD kernels are all open source. The "official" kernel doesn't have to be used, and Debian is proving you can have a GNU userland with a BSD kernel. So then I'm brought back in a full circle to say it's not the license. It's advertising and exposure.




Member since:
2009-12-25
I don't think it's the license. I think advertising has something to do with it. Remember Windows 95? I also think it's the number of developers and the amount of time dedicated to development. You have Canonical throwing money at everything. Then you have Red Hat with their "Enterprise Solutions". Linux is very experimental. ANYBODY can do ANYTHING with it. You don't like the direction one person wants to go, you go in your own direction. And, if you just want stable, you can get that, too. The BSDs... I see a lot of "waiting for permission". I can try and make the comparison as a democratic society to a dictatorship. Where linux would be the democracy and the BSD has the dictator who has the last say and control of everything. Don't get me wrong here, though. I prefer using the BSDs over linux (if it wasn't for that damn Adobe flash), but I think it's the way development happens that has allowed linux to gain a greater market share.