|
LINUX
Can somebody explain to me what Linux exactly is and what SCO exactly has to do with it.
Here is what I think I know know: Linux is an open-source (somebody gotta explain this) operating system that was designed to be free but SCO wants to market it and sell it. Try to focus less on the SCO part as the open-souce operating system part. Thanks to whoever can and will help! |
Linux is released under the GPL which basically says that everything in Linux is free and open to the public, including the source code, ie why Linux is called "open-source" and Windows is "closed-source". For more info on the GNU GPL check this site: http://www.linux.org/info/gnu.html
Under the GPL, anyone can distribute, edit, hack, whatever they want to do to the code. What they can't do is take something under the GPL and sell it as thier own. I'll bet you're wondering how companies like RedHate and SuSe sell Linux... they don't. They only sell documentation, the physical media the programs on, and support with the OS. You can still download the OS for free, but you don't get anything but the digital files. As far as SCO is concerned, they're claiming that they own the copyright to some code that is located in the Linux kernel. What most people believe is that SCO is a desperate company trying to litigate themselves out of bancruptcy, hence the scorn and derision you hear about them. I'm sure I've left things out, can someone back me up? |
A very good list of articals about the subject, including an interview with Linus Trovalds.
http://www.eweek.com/category2/0,414...10KTX2B2200436 |
Quote:
|
There are two faces to the SCO problem.
1) they are suing IBM over a file system that IBM made for AIX. Since IBM made it they put it into Linux. SCO says that since AIX uses licensed parts of their OS they own the filesystem and IBM had no right to GPL it. SCO is fucked here in court. 2) SCO has been mouthing off to the media for almost a year now about how they own linux and how linux is only good because IBM and other companies are just copying their source and putting it into linux. When SCO mouths off to the media they are just making shit up because they can and trying to scare up some money. It's been working too, check their stock price. Classic pump & dump. What I'm trying to say is what SCO says to the media (ie they own linux) is not what they are claiming in court (IBM broke a contract). BTW Linux is just the kernal. It's not a full system. |
A good way for a non-Linux user to think about Linux regarding it just being a kernel is this (and, btw, this is not technically accurate, but it helps to get the jist of the concept enough in my opinion:
Remember DOS? And Windows 3.1? Remember how Windows 3.1 ran on top of DOS? So Windows 3.1 wasn't actually an operating system, but, rather, a desktop manager. Likewise, whenever you see a pretty (or not pretty) graphical interface and it is called "Linux" that's not entirely accurate. That's like calling Windows 3.1 DOS. Linux is very modular, meaning that many things are pretty independant, so Linux technically has no graphical interface. There are just many options of graphical interfaces that can be run on Linux (i.e. <a href="http://www.kde.org">KDE</a> and <a href="http://www.gnome.org">Gnome</a>) So, that's sort of what juan means when he says it's a kernel and not a full system. Not technically what he means but I think it's enough for you to understand the basic idea. When Red Hat or IBM "sell" Linux, like yakimushi said, they are mainly selling professional support, documentation, and media. One thing he/she didn't mention though is that they also typically sell some proprietary software in their Linux packages. For example, while the free version of Mandrake Linux comes with the free cost and open-source OpenOffice.org productivity suite, the pay version of Mandrake Linux includes the $80 Sun StarOffice which is based on OpenOffice.org but has some proprietary code from Sun that is not open to be viewed and potentially modified by anyone. There are many many more instances similar to this. Also, one thing to understand about open-source, is that just because anyone can view the code and make changes to the code, that doesn't mean those changes will be accepted. Typically, anyone can view and edit the code, but in order for it to actually be put in the program, it must be submitted to the project leaders who decide if they want it to be put in their program or not. |
Sheesh... there's quite a bit of FUD in this thread.
Wired has two non-technical articles about Linux (and Linus Torvalds, its original author) that are excellent background for those interested in this subject. Check them out (only about 5/6 pages each) and then you'll know more about this issue than most people on the net. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...pensource.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ic=&topic_set= Mr Mephisto |
Hre's another explanation, in a humorous way from bash.org
This is kinda accurate... PHP Code:
|
Haha that was awesome Fallon. any more of those?
|
FUD? Like what? (disregarding Fallon's post ;))
*does not like being told he propogates FUD* |
Just look around on bash.org, and it's pretty damn funny what they got on there.
Also, if you want FUD, look at SCO's claims. They might have had one truthful statement, and that's there name is SCO, well sorta...if you don't count Caldera and all this other crap. |
Somebody told me that Linux was a free version of Unix that Linus Torvalds made because he liked it so much. Is that true? More importantly, will my "Learning the UNIX Operating System" book be helpful at all in my quest to learn Linux?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project