On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:23:37AM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote: > 2005/12/7, Greg KH : > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:38:30AM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote: > > > 2005/12/7, Greg KH : > > > > And no kernel developers are forcing anyone to use Linux. If they don't > > > > like it for whatever reasons, there are other alternatives... > > > > > > AFAIK, no proprietary software vendors are forcing any1 to buy their > > > proprietary software. Still you are speaking in a monopoly tone! > > > > How is the statement, "If you don't trust the intelligence of the Linux > > kernel developers, then don't use the Linux kernel." a monopolistic > > tone? > > The fact is Linux supports more hardware now. Some *BSD users turn to > Linux in order to drive their hardware for the _same_ reason as users > turn to windows. That is really a monopolistic position. No, not at all: mo·nop·o·ly Function: noun 1 : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition and that esp. is developed willfully rather than as the result of superior products or skill. 2 : one that has a monopoly Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. I think our "superior product and skill" is what makes us not a monopoly :) Besides, the *BSD developers routinely use our code to write their own drivers (looking at how things are done) so in the end, having Linux support a device helps them out too. So the "exclude competition" portion of the above definition is also false... thanks, greg k-h