Linux kernel

Post #70,459 by rickmoen 12/22/02 11:48:09 PM Reply	Linux kernel Tom Sinclair wrote: I can only assume that they didn't use the Linux kernel due to the GPL. Please explain. I trust you understand that only kernelspace code would be subject to the GPL forcing provisions, triggered by code linked to GPL code and redistributed as such. Thus, for example, Oracle RDBMS, IBM DB2, Informix, Sybase, Solid SQL, and rdb all run just fine on Linux kernels, and are redistributed and sold as such, with no licence problems. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #70,517 by ben_tilly 12/23/02 12:26:24 PM Reply	The presumption is... that Apple wants to keep room to have proprietary hardware with proprietary drivers whose code they don't want to release because it helps people trying to undercut their hardware sales. This may not be the reason for their choice. But it isn't a reason to choose differently either... Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #70,530 by rickmoen 12/23/02 2:49:12 PM Reply	Re: The presumption is... Ben Tilly wrote: The presumption is that Apple wants to keep room to have proprietary hardware with proprietary drivers whose code they don't want to release because it helps people trying to undercut their hardware sales. Yes, that's reasonable, and could be a reason. And yet, they've not chosen to exercise that option, if they value it. But I think the more parsimonious reason is that they already has xnu/Darwin/NeXTStep, were experts in it, and wished to keep making it. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #70,542 by ben_tilly 12/23/02 5:20:10 PM Reply	Having the option is valuable, even if not exercised The idea is to avoid having to face hardware competition. When potential competitors know that Apple has an advantage like that, it subtly encourages them to go into a different line of business. Which means that even if Apple never exercises the option, they may have gained value from having it. Certainly discouraging hardware cloners has been a past priority at Apple for decades. That said, I strongly suspect that your analysis (based on a far better understanding of the history than most of us possess) is correct. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #70,641 by tuberculosis 12/24/02 9:13:03 AM Reply	Nah Remember Rhapsody (which is essentially a port and re-styling plus kernel advancements - latest MACH is now preemptable) was started in 1996 - Linux was much too immature at the time. Besides which, Avi Tevanian was one of the designers of MACH at CMU and began publishing papers on it in 1986. So its a good old mature kernel that the chief of technology is intimately familiar with. Solid. I wouldn't have picked something as young as Linux to base a commercial product on in 1996 either. They did borrow a lot from the *BSD projects as they definitely wanted to avoid GPL issues. They do use gcc as the compiler and gdb as the debugger. But kernel choice was all about familiarity and maturity. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.

Welcome to IWETHEY!