Re: Re: Viability of Linux companies

[Arun Sharma <arun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:01:54PM +0530, Atul Chitnis wrote:
> Simple - if the clone() call is not in POSIX but *is* in Linux, it does
> not harm anyone who does not need it and who only uses POSIX compliant
> stuff.

MS extensions to Kerberos are there in MS implementation, which is 
also standards compliant. Why all this fuss about embrace and extend ?

Well, it hurts other POSIX compliant OSes (like FreeBSD), when people
write code using clone(). I can hear you saying, Linux source code 
is out there and anyone can grab it. And you know the obvious arguments
against that. 

> 
> If, on the other hand, Linux would take a POSIX-compliant call and mutate
> it so that the house comes down (as was done by MS), *then* it is called
> embrace and extend.
> 

The definition of "house comes down" is subjective and not objective.

> > Reading too much of the "linux press" is harmful to your objectivity.
> 
> Methinks that you are going a bit *too* overboard with your criticism of
> *anything* related to Linux and the way it and the community function.
> 

That's not true. I've said several times on this list that I like the
open source nature of linux and how it has helped me become a better
programmer. I've also used it extensively for personal use and continue
to do so. Should I attach a .sig with the above paragraph to every mail
I send ?

But I'm unhappy with the politics of linux and that's what I criticize.
I care about open source and freedom to keep my intellectual property,
when I want to. I don't particularly care about the name "Linux".

Could we go back to the original topic now ?

	-Arun