Subject: Re: Linux and BeOS
From: Benjamin Lowengard (ben@tiac.net)
Date: Mon Nov 22 1999 - 11:17:26 MST
Kevin adds his 2 cents:
>
>It may represent some danger, but as long as you have good people, it is not
>something to worry about.
Yes it is. Apple doesn't have to make their board designs available
to anyone but
who they authorize to do so. Regardless of how Open Source people
feel about this, I think
Apple is happy to License a lot of stuff (oh, like Quicktime) and
many companies
either go along or just don't use it. The Linux community is not a company. So,
reverse engineering maybe "smart" but is it ethical? One might ask
Is Yellowdog liable for making it these fixes available? This is a
debate for somewhere else.
>If BeOS wanted to run on G3's they could very simply.
Sure, just add a few lawyers to the mix. I use Be and Linux, and they
are quite different
beasts. I appreciate BE's stand on Apple though. Some people are mad
Apple shut out
clones, but i think the pay-off greatly outweighs the confused mess
board design was
in when apple decided to change their policy ( again, a debate for elsewhere).
> If and when they stop playing around with
>this "tech specs excuse" and start trying, I and many others would help.
It's not an excuse, it's a stance. BE is pretty cool in many respects
and the gui (imho)
blows away any of the sluggish choices Linux throws out there.
Comparing BE and Linux
is comparing Kumquats to Olives. I'm hoping that the YD client
install (gone home) comes out
soon so I can see if that's really an alternative to the BE
workstation I now prefer using(along
with my Mac workstation that is)
regards,
benj
benjamin lowengard*ben@tiac.net*ben@mediaone.net
***Luxurious living with prefabricated technology***
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Fri Dec 03 1999 - 19:07:33 MST