On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:23:20AM +1000, hartr@redhat.com wrote:
> On 31 Jul, Sean Neakums wrote:
>
> > And let's try not to confuse `commercial' and `proprietary', please.
>
> When talking about Linux, there is a real problem if the distinction is
> not made. Linux is most definitely a COMMERCIAL operating system, but it
> is likelwise most definitely not PROPRIETARY.
wrong.
there are several non-commercial, non-proprietary linux distributions
around. the most obvious example is, of course, Debian GNU/Linux.
"redhat" may be a commercial operating system, but "linux" isn't. even
for redhat, it's more accurate to call it a "commercial redistribution
of linux & tools" than a "commercial operating system".
and, given that RH is also available for free download it's probably
even more accurate to call it semi-commercial...but if you as a
representative of RH want to call your product "commercial", i'm not
going to dispute it.
> Robert Hart hartr@redhat.com
> Red Hat Asia-Pacific, Unit 15, 23 James St, Brisbane, Qld 4006, Australia
for shame, there's a lot more to the linux world than just redhat.
craig
-- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>Fabricati Diem, PVNC. -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:03 EST