In article <1v9foq$pd9@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, wirzeniu@kruuna.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
|> kem@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) writes:
|> 
|> >However, for any significant amount of commercial software to be
|> >ported to Linux, there /must/ be a stable and standard Linux version
|> >that everyone uses.  This has not yet been achieved.
|> 
|> Nor is it likely to be, unless all development stops at 1.0.
|> 
|> >Perhaps when Linus releases a 1.0 version, all the Linux packages can
|> >guarentee binary compatibility for application software.  Part of the
|> >reason for the rapid pace of Linux development is there has little
|> >concern for binary compatibility that is required for true commercial
|> >OS's.
|> 
|> Quite.  And since Linux doesn't, as far as I can see, even try to be a
|> true commercial OS, there is little need to try to guarantee binary
|> compatibility.
|> 

I've always been under the impression that a primary goal of Linux was to
provide a replacement for DOS, NT, and SunOS, etc.  I would guess most users
want it to be.  If that is not the goal of Linux, would it be so terrible to
have a company create a proprietary version that attempts to be a stable,
standard, supported version to encourage ports of commercial software,
with a real marketing budget to properly go up against the big boys.
SLS/NT or something?

I guess the answer is yes, it would be terrible, since as many have expressed
in this forum, someone would be "ripping off" or not providing monetary reward,
for those who did the existing development work.  Perhaps, but I think the truth is
people are afraid that it could actually become popular and successful,
even more so than the original free version, and this would not seem "fair".
So the idea is to only allow the original, free version to be successful,
or nothing at all.  Kind of a benign monopoly.  Sure, I respect the rights
of those who use the GPL, and some very good software has been created.
I am just sad that they've limited their potential impact.

Many feel Apple unfairly used Xerox ideas. Sure, it seems unfair,
but nothing prevented Xerox from creating a Mac.  Apple took the initiate,
took a chance, went out on a limb, invested its resources.
(Yes, their legal shit is horrible, but this can be fixed without resorted to GPL,
ask me how)
Maybe if people could see more of the failures of software companies,
they wouldn't be so hostile to the successes.

-Kelly Murray