objective, arent we?
There is much truth to the concept, although Microsoft should not be ones
to comment on it as such.
For example, if there were six different companies that marketed ethernet
drivers for the eepro100, you'd have a choice of which one to buy..perhaps
with different "features" that were of value to you. Instead, you have
crappy GPL code that locks up under load, and its not worth spending
corporate dollars to fix it because you have to give away your work for
free under GPL. And since there is a "free" driver that most people can
use, its not worth building a better mousetrap either because the market is
too small. So, the handful of users with problems get to "fit it
themselves", most of whom cant of course.
Theres also the propensity for mediocre stuff to get into the kernel
because some half-baked programmer was willing to contribute some code. The
50% of the kernel that remains "experimental" ad infinitum is evidence of that.
The biggest thing that the linux community does to stifle innovation is to
bash commercial vendors trying to make a profit by whining endlessly about
"sourceless" distributions and recommending "open-source" solutions even
when they are wholly inferior. You're only hurting yourselves in the long
run. In that respect MS is correct, because those with the dollars to
innovate will stay away.
DB
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/