On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 20:40 -0700, jdow wrote: > Of course, Windows machines have purposes in life - running software > and hardware features that cannot or will not appear on Linux due > to conflicts and doubts with GPL. (Truth or not this is not worth > a flame. It is pure fact that there is software some people need to > run that will not appear on Linux any time before the Sun freezes over > just like there are things on Linux that will probably never get fed > to Windows before the Sun turns into a red giant star. When one must > do these things one uses the appropriate OS. <shrug>That's no big > deal if you accept it as an unfortunate necessity of life. It's like > weather. So it's not worth another flame war, guys.) ---- It's very contrived to suggest that 'running software and hardware features cannot or will not appear on Linux due to conflicts and doubts with GPL' If you are speaking for yourself and your own reasoning for any software that you might write, you are entitled to your own justifications but I am quite certain that most companies decide to release software for Linux or not based upon their projection of whether they can get a financial return for their investment. Believe it or not, there are companies that write, package, sell, support software that actually runs on Linux and are not concerned, do not have doubts or conflicts with GPL such as Nero, Tolis Group, Computer Associates, IBM and on and on. Indeed Windows has the lion's share of the desktop market which is what most computer users are using and that is fine. Linux is just another option, and probably a viable option for many computer users and certainly not a viable option for many computer users. To suggest that the GPL license is the reason that most software companies don't market software to Linux users is simply not true. Craig
