[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Google to launch PC operating system

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: Google to launch PC operating system
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 19:23:21 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

Rjack <> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Tim Smith <> wrote:
>>> In article <4a561002$0$7972$>, Rui Maciel
>>>  <> wrote:

>>>>> They haven't said anything that I've seen about the rest of 
>>>>> the system other than it will be open source.

>>>> Well, if they are putting together an operating system and they
>>>>  already stated that the kernel of their operating system will
>>>>  be GPLed, then what's missing? If they happen to put up a 
>>>> non-GPLed window manager does that mean that their OS ceasses 
>>>> to be based on GPLed code?

>>> Take a look at their other current OS: Android. GPL for the 
>>> kernel. Apache license for most of the rest. That's open source,
>>>  but one can make a proprietary fork of it.

>>> Google usually doesn't use GPL for code unless they have to. 
>>> Hence, I want to know why the original poster thinks Chrome OS 
>>> will be GPL.

>> I think that's more to do with the OP, Rjack, than any 
>> announcement.  He hates the GPL with an intensity difficult to 
>> understand, possibly because he works for somebody with an interest
>>  in disparaging the GPL, though he's not prepared to shed any light
>>  on this.

> Anyone who has followed my posts would know that I am retired and
> financially independent of the commercial computer world. In fact,
> I've probably got a lot more money than I have time left to play with
> material toys.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

> Alan, you have a history of attacking people's motives since you must
> compensate for your utter ignorance concerning U.S. copyright law.

Well, that's a little inaccurate.  The second is not true (I have some
knowledge of USA copyright law, though I'm not that much interested in
it).  But such attacking of people's motives as I have done has not been
because of any such ignorance, but in aid of evaluating their opinions.

> Your hypocrisy would leave you well qualified to be a Republican
> Senator in the U.S. government.

:-)  I thought the senators in the USA government were from the
Democratic Party at the moment.

>> Maybe he saw another opportunity to attack the GPL, and in his 
>> enthusiasm, didn't quite read the article through to the end.

> I raised the issue of the GPL because any *real* threat from a Linux
> kernel based application to Micro$oft's bottom line would outweigh the
> value of the GPL to Micro$oft in suppressing new commercial
> competitors and preventing antitrust threats from the U.S.D.O.J.
> Micro$oft will legally break the GPL and Linux instantly if it ever
> actually threatens them.

Hmmm.  I don't think that's quite the way things would play out.  How
would MS do this?  By a patent war?  They'd probably find themselves
outgunned by an alliance of IBM, Google, and a myriad of medium sized
firms like RedHat, Novell, Oracle, ....  I think this would destroy the
USA patent system, and bring Microsoft down with it.  One thing we'd
agree upon: Microsoft's lawyers aren't stupid.  They'd only embark on
such a course if they were desperate.

SCO vs. IBM, Novell, et al. may have been testing the water for this
strategy.  But Novell has brushed SCO aside like the pesky nuisance it
was, and IBM will finish the job off if there's anything left of SCO
by the end of the year.

> GNUtians and RMS have blithely blathered and babbled since 1995 that
> the GPL and "Copyleft" would destroy Micro$oft. Micro$oft still owns
> the personal computer world -- 'nuff said.

I'm not sure about that.  More likely, Microsoft's OS's will slide into
irrelevance as technology moves forward, much like IBM's mainframe
systems did in the late 1980s.  MS Windows has nowhere to go; it's not
exciting technology any more, new versions have little more to offer than
their predecessors, they're just incremental changes (not all
improvements) over earlier versions.  Only MS's dirty tricks department
manages to keep forcing people to buy it.  And MS's efforts to reinvent
itself haven't been wildly successful to date.

In the 1980s, when IBM owned the mainframe world, IBM was liked then
about as much as MS is now.  Who knows, maybe MS will become a respected
company with a moral foundation by, say, 2025.

> Sincerely,
> Rjack

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]