Re: Linux Core Consortium
The history there is much more complex that that; you are
oversimplifying. In fact, with my perspective, the failure occurred
before that, but (un)intended consequences of the Consortium agreement,
which disenfranchised the flourishing community we had built. Pay for
say, and centralized development teams funded by such payers, are a
Equally important, however, was that UNIX went to the high end, where
there was profit to be made in the short term (but no volume), and M$
went to the low end, where there was volume, and eventual major profit.
That being said, certainly UNIX's disunity was a major aid to Microsoft.
Repeating that history would not be good.
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 10:53 -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> William Ballard wrote:
> >What makes you think you'll be any more successful than when the Unix
> >Consortium tried to do the same thing for Unix?
> The members considered that they had proprietary value at the level at
> which they were collaborating. We conclusively do not, because of the
> Open Source nature of the software.
> About the worst occurrance in the entire saga was the day that the X
> Consortium got together and decided that there would be no canonical X
> widget set, so that they could all differentiate from each other at that
> level. So, everyone had to turn to Microsoft to provide a canonical
> widget set on top of other manufacturer's hardware, and MS ate the X
> consortium's lunch.