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

[ironrose <ironrose@xxxxxxx>]

Yes, this definition of cloning is most accurate.  Tissue cloning, 
especially of plants use this process, taking some cells of the original 
plant (or other tissue, ie frogs), placing the cells in a hyper-growth 
medium, and creating an exact duplicate of the original.  Very useful in 
very rare plants and they don't want to take a chance on contaminating 
the genetic strain with cross-breeding (male and female geomes). 
 Experiments have been made with higher forms of life, but don't seem to 
have much intelligence.  Using the "clone" term on non-biological 
entities, like an OS is slightly confusing (Jeff explains it very well), 
and in my opinion M$ is trying to muddy the waters to make things 
confusing for the general masses.  Therefore M$ products look better, 
you buy them in a pretty box from a store, they are expensive, you get 
some support from a vendor, and therefore they must be worth it??? 
 Misinformation goes along with expensive advertising budgets?  I prefer 
linux and open office.  Ok, I'm getting off my soap box now.   ~Anne

Jeff Vian wrote:

>Since there are MANY MANY people who fail to use our language correctly, 
>I believe the word 'clone' is often misused.
>As it is commonly used today (especially in light of the genetics 
>experiments) clone refers to a "copy" (presumed identical) of the 
>original.  In that respect Linux is definitely NOT a clone of unix.  
>
>However, since most unix applications will easily run natively or with 
>slight tweaking on a linux platform and the only other major desktop OS 
>out there requires major alteration to  the application for it to run on 
>Linux, ------  Linux is easily seen (and usually referred to) as a 
>'clone' of unix.
>
>"Unix like" is the _correct_ description if one is referring to the OSes 
>available before Linux was created.
>
>This makes the argument almost moot.
>
>
>Jonathan Hall wrote:
>
>  
>
>>The first link is a newsgroup discussion explaining why Linux IS a clone,
>>and the others are not
>>
>>http://lists.slug.org.au/archives/slug-chat/2002/08/msg00010.html
>>
>>
>>These others are just references to the fact that Linux is a clone....
>>http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/technolog/technolog.html
>>http://www.ibiblio.org/dbarberi/fools/classic/1993/Linux-for-Macintosh.html
>>http://www.hoefkens.com/lnx.html
>>http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~echi/technolog/technolog.appendix.html
>>http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/System/Operating-Systems/Linux-Kern
>>el/11000/
>>
>>There are roughly 159,000 other such documents out there, according to
>>Google.  I won't list them all :)
>>
>>-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
>>visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>>
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
>visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
>
>
>  
>


-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi