Linus Torvalds, father of the Linux kernel, has fleshed out his unhappiness with GPLv3 in three recent posts on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. Torvalds previously stated that the kernel will remain under the licensing terms of GPLv2. Yesterday, Torvalds offered his opinion as to where the battle over DRM should take place.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-10
"Microsoft may hold some hardware vendors hostage, but those vendors won't just scare away a good percentage of their customers to make MS happy."
As far as I understand it's all about "volume", I believe my previous statement was correct from a business standpoint. Your not going to get a $499 Red Hat machine, but you will indeed get a $499 Vista machine. Which one will sell more do you think? I am talking about the desktop market here.
At the price point Dell is going to sell Linux workstations I will get better value from Sun. Hands down.
Member since:2005-11-16
Dell might be a good/bad example because I don't think you can buy Linux from dell thru their web site. Corporate customers may be able to strongarm them into loading an image...
Secondly, I can't buy AMD from Dell.
Third, I can't buy an AMD cpu powered laptop from Gateway/HP/Compaq with a fast GPU.
But, will it be My machine under my control, or Dell's?
I may start looking at Sun hardware if I can't get what I want to load on a Dell, ( Dell being just an example here, please replace with HP, Gateway, Sony... )
Member since:
2006-01-03
"Yes, it means that Dell will sell you something you can't load Linux on."
They will only sell you what you want to buy.
You can ask them if *you* can decide what runs and what doesn't, and then choose to buy from them or from another vendor.
I know Microsoft would have a field day if Dell et al started pushing hardware that only runs OSes signed by some outside authority. But I don't believe that this will ever happen.
I believe the likes of Dell will start selling boxes with that kind of technology, but they will let the users/companies be that signing "authority".
This makes sense, since a company may want to control what runs on their machines (servers or desktops). Individuals will just be a special case of this, a company of one, buying just a few boxes (maybe just one).
Microsoft may hold some hardware vendors hostage, but those vendors won't just scare away a good percentage of their customers to make MS happy.