alphadogg writes in with a Network World article that covers a Gartner open source conference, in which VP Mark Driver seems to be going out of his way to be provocative. "You can try to avoid open source, but it's probably easier to get out of the IT business altogether. By 2011, at least 80% of commercial software will contain significant amounts of open source code..." After this lead-in, in which open source seems to be regarded as some kind of communicable disease, the rest of the article outlines a perfectly rational plan for developing an open source strategy.
Just like any good idea. Open source just might be the right way to get the best product to the end user. If that proves to be true then nothing can stop it. Gallaleo was right, the Earth goes around the Sun, nothing could stop the idea. Of coarse this hinges on weather open source really is the best way. I do not have the answer to this.
I agree the idea can't be stopped. But I think the unintended consequence is tons of copyright/distribution license violations or Tivoization. A business will use gpl'd libraries to avoid having to make their own and then pass the whole thing off as their own. From there, they've got an advertising budget so they can easily drown out the buzz from a community-based solutions.
I know it happens in windows because some of the commands for a particular ssh server my employer was using were 1:1 openssl. I aske
Openssh is BSD licensed, so there are no GPL concerns. They may be lying about the "clean-room implementation," but in the end it doesn't matter due to the fact that it is BSD licensed.
--Dude, where've you been? I haven't been able to reach you for days!
--I was in the hospital with (whispers) *Linux*. They wouldn't let me get online. They were afraid I'd install it on the computer. They even found it on my cellphone.
--Man, that's harsh!
--You're telling me! At least they put me in a room with Windows.
The article says that some say that day is already here. I agree.
Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well. (Meaning you can't test it on Mac, because then you'd be dealing with open source.)
Now, try to have a successful business without the internet. Sure, it's possible on a small scale, but I can't name a single business I deal with that doesn't have at least a 'contact us' page on the internet with a phone number.
And that doesn't even get into interacting with other companies that happily use open source in their daily functioning.
The article says that some say that day is already here. I agree.
Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well.
I could quote more, but I would bet that almost 100% of the sane people on the planet would agree with both the parent post and the linked article.
I'm just confused as to the point of the article. This article seems as relevant as saying air in the Earth's atmosphere contains 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, 0.03 percent carbon dioxide, with trace gasses and this is impossible to avoid.
Is there something I missed? Is open source a problem or something? I don't understand the point here.
In addition to the domains where open-source is already firmly established (the Internet, as you mention, and many embedded device spaces, too), there are indeed many new domains where open-source is becoming more and more "necessary." Consider this (admittedly brief) writeup [phoronix.com] on a talk given by "Intel's Chief Linux and Open-Source Technologist." The writeup says:
He also mentioned that a major OEM is requiring that by next year their hardware suppliers must either have an open-source driver available or be able to provide an open-source driver within the next twelve months. The likely company that comes to mind is Dell but Dirk refused to comment any further.
If the speculation is correct (that Dell wants all hardware to have open-source drivers available within 12 months), that's a big deal. Such a push is an example of the benefits of open-source being pushed into a new market (in this case, the desktop commodity hardware space).
You do realize that Dell is already being queezed on the laptop front? They are good at what they do, they can turn a profit on desktops. Laptops, have a smaller profit margin on the low end. It is really hurting them. MS being 10% to 25% of cost on systems. It would not hurt Dell to be able to sell without Microsoft.
Dell is still a big name. Nvidia, Western Digital, etc, all have warehouses within a few blocks of where Dell puts systems together. Dell does not keep but 6 or 7 days worth of parts on hand. Th
I can't imagine Dell requiring open-source drivers. Even if to support their Linux offerings.
The problem isn't the lack of drivers, it is what the Chinese will do with an open-source driver.
I really don't understand why Dell would care. They arn't hardware designers, just system integrators using (mostly) comodity parts.
Hardware manufacturer spends lots of time (read: money) developing software-instead-of-hardware approach to make a given computer peripherial lower cost to the consumer.
While I'm sure there are exceptions for the most part I'd say I'm happy to see those pursuing that approach go. Forget Linux etc. even on Windows these types of hardware tend to be the buggiest pieces of garbage available and are the first to become obsolete when a new version of Windows, or even sometimes a service pack, comes out. What's wrong with hardware makers competing based on making better hardware?
You release the hardware specs (or better yet, a real working driver) and you now enable somebody to duplicate all that work in a couple of weeks just reusing (yes, stealing) the software. No R&D time. Much, much cheaper product.
Well, they still have to duplicate the hardware which is IMHO a lot harder than copying the software, be it open or closed.
I can't imagine Dell requiring open-source drivers. Even if to support their Linux offerings. [...] You release the hardware specs (or better yet, a real working driver) and you now enable somebody to duplicate all that work in a couple of weeks just reusing (yes, stealing) the software. No R&D time. Much, much cheaper product.
Yes, I can hardly imagine Dell wanting to see their suppliers in a price war. I'm sure it would break their heart if all their components were suddenly "much, much cheaper".
After this lead-in, in which open source seems to be regarded as some kind of communicable disease
Sir, you appear to be confusing "open source" with "open sores." I realize they sound similar, and English spelling isn't entirely logical, but this one ends with an "S" sound, not a "Z."
Of course Open Source is a communicable disease. All freedom is. That's why they call it freedom, and that's also why those in control fear it so much.
DUH!
I fault YOU, dear comment submitter, for attaching a negative connotation to it. There's nothing wrong a viral idea, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that an idea is viral. There is something wrong with being ashamed of perfectly decent things.
What this says, in my view, is that 80% of the developers that are, um, developing will see freedom as beneficial. And in my world, that ROCKS!
There's nothing wrong a viral idea, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that an idea is viral.
Your comment made me think of what first attracted me to the Free Software world. To any one who's discovered the elegant beauty of Darwin's evolutionary theory, there is an equal attractiveness in the way the GPL license is framed.
The very fact that the GPL attaches itself to the code its released under, and survives into the downstream modifications that are made to the code.. there are beautiful resemblances to the way successful life itself evolves.
I'm inclined to believe that licenses that are not viral (e.g. BSD) and depend on altruistic reasons to survive, are somehow doomed to extinction (i.e. will be swallowed by proprietary licenses that couldn't care less about perpetuating the BSD cause). In the long run, the GPL will emerge as the fitter license that made its way into the larger user base while retaining pefect copies of itself.
(Of course I'm neither a biologist nor a programmer, so apologies if I sound like I'm talking outta my ass.)
By 2011, at least 80% of commercial software will contain significant amounts of open source code
If these predictions are correct (which they probably aren't) how do these products stay "commercial"? If at least half of that Open Source software is GPL covered, then %40 of that commercial software will have to be open as well.
Its entirely possible to make commercial GPL software. You can't really charge for the software (yeah yeah, I know Stallman *claims* that you can charge for GPL software, but the reality is that free copy and distribution drives the price of the software to $0), but you can charge for the services in writing or supporting the software, or provide other services for running the software (software is free, hardware costs cash, factor cost of software into the hardware).
In all honesty, I would not be surprised if more companies went the way of distributing free (as in beer) components of their larger software. Quick examples I can think of are VMWare's server product and Adobe Photoshop's free fork.
LGPL, BSD, etc, licenses exist also. Almost all of the commercial software I've ever programmed for had open source components, but the companies were always diligent enough to pick libraries that did not require open sourcing of the entire app.
If these predictions are correct (which they probably aren't) how do these products stay "commercial"?
For mostly the same reasons I just bought lunch at the cafe downstairs. The salad I'm eating is fully "open source" and I have plenty of know-how and experience to make my own salads by growing the component vegetables in my garden and bring in my own lunches for little if any money.
For my money, I get "ready to eat" convenience taking only a few minutes of my time and full product support--if it's not to my liking, I can take it back and get it fixed.
Open Source != written by anti-commerce hippies. The software may be free, but there's plenty of money to be had providing and supporting solutions.
There's commercial efforts based on or working with open source right now.
$DAYJOB for me these days is Wind River Linux. Yes, it's all GPLd. Yes, source is available. We are still offering something people are willing to pay for, and people continue to pay us money for stuff. It's clearly a commercial product; it's just a commercial product that happens to have a lot of GPL'd code in it.
Your math assumes that 50% of open source being GPL'd will carry over to the 80% of software, which it won't necessarily. Businesses who want to close their source will choose the code with less restrictive licenses, or they'll only link to LGPL code, etc.
Especially components. Why write a parser, for example (say, an XML parser), or get a budget for licensing one, when you can grab a FOSS one under a permissive license and dynamically link it as a library (hopefully without compromising your company's proprietary product)? This type of thing is happening all over. Already. So is corporate participation in open source projects, purely out of a self-interested economic calculation.
Open Source and Commercial are not intrinsically mutually exclusive. The opposite of Open Source (OS) is Proprietary, while the opposite of Commercial is Zero-Cost (0$, one of the meanings of "Free", but "Zero-Cost" resolves the ambiguity). Having said that, it is indeed difficult to make software both Open Source and Commercial, since the software recipients can then freely redistribute it. There are only two true ways I can think of:
The market is so small or specialized that it would not be practical to
Isn't this the same Gartner that Laura DiDio worked for and suggested that Open Source software and especially Linux had no place in the then "today's world?" I guess things have changed a lot. But what does she say now? An slashdotter wants to know.
Considering this recent revelation of the future from this prophet, we here at Microsoft want a piece of the action too. We have been dodging this bullet for too long. It's time to sink our teeth in and bite it.
We have been holding secret negotiations with Torvalds and starting next year, the NT kernel will be scrapped in favor of the Linux kernel. Windows will cease to be an operating system. Instead, Microsoft will develop something to be known as "the Windows Desktop Environment", or
Shrink-wrapped commercial stuff like Word and Excel might be under threat, but there will always be jobs for people working on bespoke business projects. For example, I can't imagine an altruistic bunch of people getting together to write a special flight booking system for British Airways.
The problem that I see is that the 80% isn't necessarily meaning that more code is going to be open source, just that more of it's going to get used. Look at the network stack for vista to see what I mean.
Making an "open source strategy" is silly. No one has an "EULA" planning session where they try to make general guidelines for what kind of non free screwing they will and won't take. They consider the options available and take the best. This is a panic by non free software vendors and their pawns. The same people who used to tell you to always use the "best" tool for the job realize that the best tool is often a free one. Open Software planning sessions are a waste of time designed to heap FUD on free software. The time waste itself will put you at a competitive disadvantage, using the wrong tools will too.
It's never been rational to ignore free software. Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software. The people telling you to ignore free software have been plundering it themselves all along.
Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software.
That's quite a sweeping statement. Since you're using it to back up your implied argument that free software is inherently superior, could you provide some examples of this?
I can provide examples, but that won't satisfy you.
Browser history [wikipedia.org], if not the web itself, and symbolic manipulation [wikipedia.org] are good places to start. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing you can do with a computer that someone has not used for their PhD and created a free, working copy. Often, there will be a great big pool of public domain code from government sponsored research, but some of that has been stolen and given to private interests. The great wave of source code theft that happened in the 1980s was the exception, not the rule.
I did not imply that free software is inherently superior for every person. It is mostly is if value performance. It's always superior if you value freedom and flexibility. I value freedom and have not given up much to have it. There are a few cases where you might have to keep a Windows machine around, but most people can do without it and be better off.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, so I can't help you anymore than that.
Making an "open source strategy" is silly. No one has an "EULA" planning session where they try to make general guidelines for what kind of non free screwing they will and won't take.
Much as you might find it silly, many companies *are* doing it.
If they are not going with "Zero Indemnification" policy of Microsoft, they need to know what sort of open source licenses they will use, what sort of support packages they feel their businesses need. An example: in the UK, Financial Services companies **must** have support contracts on all software which is not built in house, otherwise their auditors make them put money aside to insure against the risk. Should your company use GPL software or only BSD license? What if you make and sell software like System Integrators do and need to supply your own support agreements?
I would love to call it silly and say no one is doing it, but when top Global companies are doing exactly this (I'm dealing with the people who are doing it on a daily basis), you're just ignorant.
And as for saying that open source planning sessions are just to heap FUD on Open Source, you're plain wrong. Often we (open source companies) push for them to make sure customers do have a policy for how and where they use open source, otherwise they'll just take whatever Microsoft or Oracle push to them - nobody likes to change, it's a right pain. But we (open source companies and other interested/stakeholder individuals) need to push for these battles, because we win. I'll ignore your last paragraph which is just utter nonsense.
There's a significant distinction, though. Not only is open source software available under a different license, it's also easy to get -- you don't have to go through purchasing to get open-source software; you just download it. As a result, companies sometimes find themselves using, and sometimes selling, open source software when they didn't intend to. It just gets added in by some engineer who doesn't think much of it. That's a lot harder to do that when the software has to be approved by some manage
> >Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software. >I thought it was the other way around - free software has its roots in creating free alternatives to non-free software.
Actually, of course, it's both ways. But free -> private happens a lot more than private -> free, for fairly simple and obvious reasons. The non-free, private software owners generally don't let us see their source, so building on their achievements is difficult (and lawsuit-prone). The free, op
This is the Gartner Group we're talking about. The only thing that amazes me is that anyone still pays them any attention at all. I still have some presentation materials around here somewhere where they warn that 30% of US businesses will fail due to Y2K problems.
No, there are multiple implementations of a TCP/IP stack. I've heard that e.g. Linux uses its own implementation, and Microsoft claims to have reimplemented the stack for Vista.
I've also read that the IETF wouldn't accept a protocol specification as an internet standard if there aren't at least two independent implementations of the protocol, which wouldn't be the case if everyone was using the BSD stack.
Sounds right (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A business will use gpl'd libraries to avoid having to make their own and then pass the whole thing off as their own. From there, they've got an advertising budget so they can easily drown out the buzz from a community-based solutions.
I know it happens in windows because some of the commands for a particular ssh server my employer was using were 1:1 openssl. I aske
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A conversation (Score:5, Funny)
--I was in the hospital with (whispers) *Linux*. They wouldn't let me get online. They were afraid I'd install it on the computer. They even found it on my cellphone.
--Man, that's harsh!
--You're telling me! At least they put me in a room with Windows.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well that's an understatment... (Score:2, Funny)
Already here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well. (Meaning you can't test it on Mac, because then you'd be dealing with open source.)
Now, try to have a successful business without the internet. Sure, it's possible on a small scale, but I can't name a single business I deal with that doesn't have at least a 'contact us' page on the internet with a phone number.
And that doesn't even get into interacting with other companies that happily use open source in their daily functioning.
Re:Already here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Try to do -anything- on the web without having to deal with Firefox, Apache, PHP, etc, etc... Good freaking luck. Even Safari uses open source components, so there goes all compatibility with Mac as well.
I could quote more, but I would bet that almost 100% of the sane people on the planet would agree with both the parent post and the linked article.
I'm just confused as to the point of the article. This article seems as relevant as saying air in the Earth's atmosphere contains 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, 0.03 percent carbon dioxide, with trace gasses and this is impossible to avoid.
Is there something I missed? Is open source a problem or something? I don't understand the point here.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Otherwise, they might as well be dead and useless.
Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Gartner's company line for years was "Avoid open source, it's risky".
That's changed slightly. Reading the article, it looks like they're now saying "It's still risky but you can't avoid it".
Re:Already here. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are good at what they do, they can turn a profit on desktops. Laptops, have a smaller profit margin on the low end. It is really hurting them. MS being 10% to 25% of cost on systems. It would not hurt Dell to be able to sell without Microsoft.
Dell is still a big name. Nvidia, Western Digital, etc, all have warehouses within a few blocks of where Dell puts systems together. Dell does not keep but 6 or 7 days worth of parts on hand. Th
Re:Already here. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't the lack of drivers, it is what the Chinese will do with an open-source driver.
I really don't understand why Dell would care. They arn't hardware designers, just system integrators using (mostly) comodity parts.
Hardware manufacturer spends lots of time (read: money) developing software-instead-of-hardware approach to make a given computer peripherial lower cost to the consumer.
While I'm sure there are exceptions for the most part I'd say I'm happy to see those pursuing that approach go. Forget Linux etc. even on Windows these types of hardware tend to be the buggiest pieces of garbage available and are the first to become obsolete when a new version of Windows, or even sometimes a service pack, comes out. What's wrong with hardware makers competing based on making better hardware?
You release the hardware specs (or better yet, a real working driver) and you now enable somebody to duplicate all that work in a couple of weeks just reusing (yes, stealing) the software. No R&D time. Much, much cheaper product.
Well, they still have to duplicate the hardware which is IMHO a lot harder than copying the software, be it open or closed.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't imagine Dell requiring open-source drivers. Even if to support their Linux offerings. [...] You release the hardware specs (or better yet, a real working driver) and you now enable somebody to duplicate all that work in a couple of weeks just reusing (yes, stealing) the software. No R&D time. Much, much cheaper product.
Yes, I can hardly imagine Dell wanting to see their suppliers in a price war. I'm sure it would break their heart if all their components were suddenly "much, much cheaper".
Disease? (Score:4, Funny)
Sir, you appear to be confusing "open source" with "open sores." I realize they sound similar, and English spelling isn't entirely logical, but this one ends with an "S" sound, not a "Z."
It is a disease, and that's why it works! (Score:5, Insightful)
DUH!
I fault YOU, dear comment submitter, for attaching a negative connotation to it. There's nothing wrong a viral idea, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that an idea is viral. There is something wrong with being ashamed of perfectly decent things.
What this says, in my view, is that 80% of the developers that are, um, developing will see freedom as beneficial. And in my world, that ROCKS!
Re:It is a disease, and that's why it works! (Score:4, Interesting)
The very fact that the GPL attaches itself to the code its released under, and survives into the downstream modifications that are made to the code.. there are beautiful resemblances to the way successful life itself evolves.
I'm inclined to believe that licenses that are not viral (e.g. BSD) and depend on altruistic reasons to survive, are somehow doomed to extinction (i.e. will be swallowed by proprietary licenses that couldn't care less about perpetuating the BSD cause). In the long run, the GPL will emerge as the fitter license that made its way into the larger user base while retaining pefect copies of itself.
(Of course I'm neither a biologist nor a programmer, so apologies if I sound like I'm talking outta my ass.)
Parent
In other news (Score:2, Informative)
Open source in commercial software? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In all honesty, I would not be surprised if more companies went the way of distributing free (as in beer) components of their larger software. Quick examples I can think of are VMWare's server product and Adobe Photoshop's free fork.
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source != GPL
LGPL, BSD, etc, licenses exist also. Almost all of the commercial software I've ever programmed for had open source components, but the companies were always diligent enough to pick libraries that did not require open sourcing of the entire app.
Re:Open source in commercial software? (Score:5, Insightful)
For mostly the same reasons I just bought lunch at the cafe downstairs. The salad I'm eating is fully "open source" and I have plenty of know-how and experience to make my own salads by growing the component vegetables in my garden and bring in my own lunches for little if any money.
For my money, I get "ready to eat" convenience taking only a few minutes of my time and full product support--if it's not to my liking, I can take it back and get it fixed.
Open Source != written by anti-commerce hippies. The software may be free, but there's plenty of money to be had providing and supporting solutions.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
$DAYJOB for me these days is Wind River Linux. Yes, it's all GPLd. Yes, source is available. We are still offering something people are willing to pay for, and people continue to pay us money for stuff. It's clearly a commercial product; it's just a commercial product that happens to have a lot of GPL'd code in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How to be Open Source yet Commercial (Score:2)
Having said that, it is indeed difficult to make software both Open Source and Commercial, since the software recipients can then freely redistribute it. There are only two true ways I can think of:
What does DiDio say? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Hell is freezing. Wrap the pipes. (Score:2, Funny)
Considering this recent revelation of the future from this prophet, we here at Microsoft want a piece of the action too. We have been dodging this bullet for too long. It's time to sink our teeth in and bite it.
We have been holding secret negotiations with Torvalds and starting next year, the NT kernel will be scrapped in favor of the Linux kernel. Windows will cease to be an operating system. Instead, Microsoft will develop something to be known as "the Windows Desktop Environment", or
Bespoke Software Won't disappear (Score:2)
Is Gartner warning us? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh but you can... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Strategy" is Not Rational (Score:5, Insightful)
Making an "open source strategy" is silly. No one has an "EULA" planning session where they try to make general guidelines for what kind of non free screwing they will and won't take. They consider the options available and take the best. This is a panic by non free software vendors and their pawns. The same people who used to tell you to always use the "best" tool for the job realize that the best tool is often a free one. Open Software planning sessions are a waste of time designed to heap FUD on free software. The time waste itself will put you at a competitive disadvantage, using the wrong tools will too.
It's never been rational to ignore free software. Every significant non free program has roots in some kind of free software. The people telling you to ignore free software have been plundering it themselves all along.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's quite a sweeping statement. Since you're using it to back up your implied argument that free software is inherently superior, could you provide some examples of this?
Re:"Strategy" is Not Rational (Score:4, Informative)
I can provide examples, but that won't satisfy you.
Browser history [wikipedia.org], if not the web itself, and symbolic manipulation [wikipedia.org] are good places to start. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing you can do with a computer that someone has not used for their PhD and created a free, working copy. Often, there will be a great big pool of public domain code from government sponsored research, but some of that has been stolen and given to private interests. The great wave of source code theft that happened in the 1980s was the exception, not the rule.
I did not imply that free software is inherently superior for every person. It is mostly is if value performance. It's always superior if you value freedom and flexibility. I value freedom and have not given up much to have it. There are a few cases where you might have to keep a Windows machine around, but most people can do without it and be better off.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, so I can't help you anymore than that.
Parent
Re:"Strategy" is Not Rational (Score:4, Insightful)
Much as you might find it silly, many companies *are* doing it.
If they are not going with "Zero Indemnification" policy of Microsoft, they need to know what sort of open source licenses they will use, what sort of support packages they feel their businesses need. An example: in the UK, Financial Services companies **must** have support contracts on all software which is not built in house, otherwise their auditors make them put money aside to insure against the risk. Should your company use GPL software or only BSD license? What if you make and sell software like System Integrators do and need to supply your own support agreements?
I would love to call it silly and say no one is doing it, but when top Global companies are doing exactly this (I'm dealing with the people who are doing it on a daily basis), you're just ignorant.
And as for saying that open source planning sessions are just to heap FUD on Open Source, you're plain wrong. Often we (open source companies) push for them to make sure customers do have a policy for how and where they use open source, otherwise they'll just take whatever Microsoft or Oracle push to them - nobody likes to change, it's a right pain. But we (open source companies and other interested/stakeholder individuals) need to push for these battles, because we win. I'll ignore your last paragraph which is just utter nonsense.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>I thought it was the other way around - free software has its roots in creating free alternatives to non-free software.
Actually, of course, it's both ways. But free -> private happens a lot more than private -> free, for fairly simple and obvious reasons. The non-free, private software owners generally don't let us see their source, so building on their achievements is difficult (and lawsuit-prone). The free, op
Consider the Source (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Consider the Source (Score:5, Interesting)
Gartner Says Linux PCs Just Used To Pirate Windows [slashdot.org] (2004)
Gartner Recommends Holding Onto The SCO Money [slashdot.org] (2003)
(Sure they got some better ones too, I just picked the funnies)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, there are multiple implementations of a TCP/IP stack. I've heard that e.g. Linux uses its own implementation, and Microsoft claims to have reimplemented the stack for Vista.
I've also read that the IETF wouldn't accept a protocol specification as an internet standard if there aren't at least two independent implementations of the protocol, which wouldn't be the case if everyone was using the BSD stack.