On 6 Aug, Craig Sanders wrote:
> 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.
You are failing to grasp the point that Linux being 'commercial' or not
is determined by its USE; wether the organisation using it paid for it
or not is irrelevant.
Linux (and please note I never referred to Red Hat Linux in my post -
just Linux) has been *commercial* (ie people using it for commercial
activity) since well before there was a Red Hat!
>
>> 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.
Never said there wasn't - that's the real beauty of the open source
world...
...and for the future, please note that the company name is Red Hat -
two words, with capitals?
Tks
-- Robert Hart hartr@redhat.com Red Hat Asia-Pacific, Unit 15, 23 James St, Brisbane, Qld 4006, Australia Tel +61 (0)7 3872 4808 Fax +61 (0)7 3257 4800
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:03 EST