On Saturday 13 September 2003 17:47, Russell Hires wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> So what you're asking is a technical question? My questions about BSD vs
> Linux kernels is always about some kind of "why one vs the other?"
> philosophical differences and why Linux gets buzz when the BSDs don't. But
> I'm thinking this is really about binary compatibility. I believe that *BSD
> kernels can run Linux apps natively, whereas Linux kernels can't run *BSD
> apps natively. I think also that *BSD is different from Linux in a similar
> way as Unix(tm) is different from Linux. It's the same architecture, and
> they operate in the same way, but they are still different, much like IBM's
> Unix(tm) AIX is different from HP's flavor. Something like that...
>
> Russell
Hi Russell
No actually my question is political.
The question of Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD define the political side.
Lets forget about the difference in licensing for this discussion.
What I am then asking is what does it take [in time and effort only not
actually doing] for a group of top level programmers [say Linus class] to
replace the Linux core with a BSD core?
The point of the question is that RMS stated that there are 4 kernels for GNU.
The only 4 cores I can thank of that may fit the bill are the Linus + BSD
cores. I am not sure of exactly what BE-OS is. It could be or not be one.
The central idea to my thoughts is that on Gorkylaw there seems to be a lot of
postulation that MS is the group that is behind the SCO attacks on Linus.
My hypotheses is lets suppose not. That is lets suppose that MS even though
they have a confluence of interest is not the driving force. Then that leaves
The Canopy Group's backers as a major potential set of candidates.
The Canopy group owns or controls so far overtly about 10 Linux related
companies including Zyman (Sp=?) and Qt. All they lack in setting up another
dominance similar to MS is control of the Linux kernel unless the kernel is
replacable as RMS suggested. Now lets suppose that by some reason of trickery
they establish this. Then what are the possibilities? That is the bases of my
question of is it possible to replace the Linux kernel with the BSD kernels
and if so how difficult will this be. Basically Linux is going to continue
to be vulnerable to SCO type attacks as long as it is the only alternate to
MS.
Frank
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:37:53 EDT