Freebsd vs. linux

[Bart Silverstrim]

On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

> Bart Silverstrim writes:
>
>> "It's not part of the OS!"
>>
>> Fine.  Will MS let me buy just the kernel?
>
> No, but you don't have to buy or install most of the drivers.  If you
> run with only required default drivers, the system will be stable.

Let's pretend I'm working on a system for the good old days, see if 
that will help make sense for a minute...

*THE ISSUE BEING ADDRESSED HERE WAS THE DRIVERS INCLUDED WITH THE OS 
ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE OS.  IF THE DRIVERS ARE THIRD PARTY BUT 
INCLUDED ON THE DEFAULT, AS-PURCHASED CD, 99% OF SANE PEOPLE OUT THERE 
IN THE REAL WORLD CONSIDER IT PART OF THE OS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE 
TO GO OUT AND JUMP THROUGH HOOPS TO INSTALL IT.  THE OS DETECTED THE 
DEVICE AND INSTALLED THE DRIVER, THIRD PARTY OR NOT, BECAUSE IT WAS 
WITH THEIR CD.  AS I RECALL BUT THE QUOTE HAS BEEN SNIPPED, SOMEONE 
SAID THEY HAD BEEN RUNNING THE DEFAULT DRIVERS AND THE DRIVER WAS CRAP 
SO THE OS STILL CRASHED.  WITH A DEFAULT, INCLUDED, DETECTED AND 
OS-INSTALLED DRIVER.*

>> Extend it a little more, even MS argued that Internet Explorer was 
>> part
>> of the operating system and could not be unbundled.  For their product
>> definition, it was part of the OS.  Technically, it was not.
>> Practically, it was.
>
> They tried very hard to make it part of the OS, which was a serious
> mistake, but they were very taken with the whole idea of web-everything
> at the time.

That *DOESN'T MATTER*.  The fact is they did it.  Of course it was a 
bloody mistake.  The fact is they marketed and in court testified that 
it was PART OF the OS.  For all practical purposes, they bundled it as 
part of the OS.  Technically speaking it isn't.  I don't CARE what the 
justification is.  They did it.  End of story.