Linked by snydeq on Tue 16th Jul 2013 23:43 UTC
Linux Serdar Yegalulp offers a long view of the current evolution of Linux, one that sees the open source OS firmly entrenched as a cornerstone of IT, evolving in almost every direction at once - including most demonstrably toward the mobile and embedded markets. "If Linux acceptance and development are peaking, where does Linux go from up? Because Linux is such a mutable phenomenon and appears in so many incarnations, there may not be any single answer to that question. More important, perhaps, is how Linux - the perennial upstart - will embrace the challenges of being a mature and, in many areas, market-leading project. Here's a look at the future of Linux: as raw material, as the product of community and corporate contributions, and as the target of any number of challenges to its ethos, technical prowess, and growth."
Thread beginning with comment 567377
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: changed my thinking
by Laurence on Thu 18th Jul 2013 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: changed my thinking"
Member since:

I've only read the first paragraph and its pretty clear that you've missed my point. The comparison was about how NT is sat on all of Microsoft's flagship products and how people don't generally drill down to the exact version of Windows when paraphrasing the OS. Just like how with Linux. My point wasn't that NT and Linux are the same in terms of technology, like how you've focused on.

And what's more, my point about the kernel architecture being different was intended to emphasise just how different NT and Linux are if you nitpick the argument. Ie I'm saying they're obviously technologically different if you wish to dwell on specifics, but the point of the analogy was a higher level overview of how people refer to OSs that share a common core in spite of having a different range of target platforms.

So save your lectures about kernel design, linux and NT. I know all that stuff already. It's just not relevant to the point I was trying to make.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: changed my thinking
by tylerdurden on Thu 18th Jul 2013 22:56 in reply to "RE[5]: changed my thinking"
tylerdurden Member since:

OK. I simply pointed out and expanded on why your analogy was false.

If you feel the need to preserve the dissonance of assuming that the point was correct (regardless) even though the analogy used to express it was flawed, then so be it. I apologize for having rudely interjected your lecture.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: changed my thinking
by Laurence on Thu 18th Jul 2013 23:35 in reply to "RE[6]: changed my thinking"
Laurence Member since:

Oh just grow the hell up.

I can accept if you don't agree with the analogy. However I have frequently said that no analogy is perfect; I'm not trying to say that Linux is exactly like NT. I was only highlighting parallels between the two (and while they are very different, there are also similarities that can be compared). Annoyingly though, you're not even addressing the aspects which I was highlighting with my analogy. Instead you're going off on some wild tangent that's akin to saying "all obligatory car analogies are false because cars aren't software so they're inherently different." Which is true, but also completely misses the whole fucking point of an analogy.

But as I said, I can accept that you don't agree with my anology. But to miss the point of it so massively as you have done; and then to post that obnoxious poison about how you must be right because you told me so; well it's just pathetic.

Honestly, I don't get why some people consider the internet a free pass to behave like primates tooling a wooden club for the first time. You want to be seen as the intellectual alpha male; I get that. But at least conduct your discussion in a manner that's befitting of an intellectual.

Reply Parent Score: 4