[aclug-L] Re: Clone? (was: Re: There are still some monkeys in the CEO chair)

[Nate Bargmann <n0nb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have to go with Jonathan on the definition of clone.

For those that may be too young to remember, back in the early '80s IBM
begat the IBM PC and later models until the introduction of the PS/2
line.  Built around common parts available to any other computer
designer/manufacturer, the IBM models quickly inspired many companies to
build and sell "IBM PC clones".  That's what they were called and they
fit the computing world's definition of clone parfectly.

I think that applying the common medical/scientific definition of clone
today to the world of computing, then one would have to conclude that
the BSDs are clones and Linux is not.  However, the definition of the
word clone by the two fields of endeavor have never agreed and most
computer geeks are not going to redefine their definition of clone only
because Dolly, and her successors, has made the medical definition more
popular.

So, using the long time accepted definition of clone as used by the
computing world, Linux is a Unix clone.  Meaning it looks and/or
functions identically to Unix, but does not contain any historic Unix
code.

On the other hand, the BSDs are Unix.  They have a direct ancestry path
to the classic AT&T Unix code.  Therefore, they are not clones.
Likewise XFree is not a clone of X11.  It is in fact mostly the actual
X11 code with certain modifications and driver additions.

Now, as to why Linux has prospered and the BSDs have languished,
relatively speaking.  There are many thoughts on this matter.  It is 
true that both licenses are considered "Free" by both RMS and the DFSG.  
The subtle difference is that the BSD license allows another entity to 
use code licensed by it in any manner that entity chooses.  For some 
contributors, that's a non-issue.  In constrast, the GPL has been hotly 
debated over the years as to whether it is truly free.  That debate has 
centered around the way another party may incorporate GPL licensed code 
into a "derived work".  Some people see this restriction as a feature 
while others consider it a bug.

With the basic license differences in mind, there are Linux kernel
developers who take the GPL very seriously, Alan Cox, for example.  I'm
sure there are others for whom the GPL is a non-issue and are happy to
contribute to a system that works for them.  So what has spurred Linux's
popularity?

Arguably, the BSDs have been around longer and had a large amount of
mindshare when Linux hit the scene.  So what was the reason Linux
rapidly became more popular than the BSDs, the open development used by
Linus or the GPL?  IMO, the GPL vs. BSD license issue is a part of the 
answer, but to what degree remains debatable.  In large measure I think
Linus' approach to the kernel's development in the early years is
largely ignored as a reason.  Looking back a news archives, one can see
that many wanted to do the same with Minix, but were restricted from
doing so.  Linus opened the floodgates, so to speak, and here was an OS
project that nearly anyone could be a part of, which really allowed it
to capture the mindshare of frustrated Unix developers all over the
world.

Just $1.02 worth.

- Nate >>

-- 
 Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB          | "We have awakened a
 Internet | n0nb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               | sleeping giant and
 Location | Bremen, Kansas USA EM19ov           | have instilled in him
  Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | a terrible resolve".
             http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/           | - Admiral Yamamoto
-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi