On Tue, Jul 21, 1998 at 12:36:40AM -0500, Kysh Dragon wrote: > > I think you're confusing Linux with Windows. Windows is the one > > that's not GPLed. > > The GPL doesn't matter a whit in these cases. The GPL doesn't prohibit > someone from starting a deplorable trend that is utterly not in > complience with 'standards'. The GPL doesn't prohibit RedHat from putting > Enlightenment in > /lib/modules/graphics/2.1.109/Enlightenment/e.binary/enlightenment -- No > matter how deplorable that is. And if RedHat does it and starts a trend, > the developers who use RedHat will follow that trend... And break > compatibility on other systems. If Redhat started a trend THAT bad, they'd be laughed out of the industry. > For example, there are lots of programs that want to install themselves in > /opt. RedHat has /opt. I hate /opt and no system I ever admin will have > /opt unless it's Solaris. lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Jul 22 12:39 opt -> /usr/local// Zimple! My preference is to leave anything people would put into /opt into /usr/local, the place the FSSTND says to put such things. When we move to FHS, I will use that after I have repartitioned. Then, not now. > Say that RedHat takes it into their skull to write a proprietory libc / > dynamic loader (ld). Programmers run RedHat. They program with the new > libc. Bam, an industry standard, like Microsoft word. Again, I expect Redhat would not create a proprietary libc/ld.. Nobody would use Redhat again if they did that. Look at M$. People are dropping it like a hot potato now because what they were doing was bad--what they are doing now is intollerable. We wouldn't put up with it from Redhat either.
Attachment:
pgpD77bjlpV0z.pgp
Description: PGP signature