From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 16 13:04:12 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C6916A4CE for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:04:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.chrononomicon.com (chrononomicon.com [216.37.143.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6BF43D48 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:04:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsilver@chrononomicon.com) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [192.168.0.42]) by mail.chrononomicon.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F18835935A for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:04:10 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: <1702452558.20050215184031@wanadoo.fr> References: <200502112313.28082.hindrich@worldchat.com> <823196404.20050212105644@wanadoo.fr> <420DE422.3020102@wanadoo.es> <1546398643.20050212123202@wanadoo.fr> <420E0164.7090300@wanadoo.es> <1587470376.20050215001857@wanadoo.fr> <16113082.20050215014337@wanadoo.fr> <42a56a568660fc06de1b0e70bf9b7deb@chrononomicon.com> <1702452558.20050215184031@wanadoo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <09c2864016708a332517b4a71dca5849@chrononomicon.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Bart Silverstrim Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:04:13 -0500 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) Subject: Re: Freebsd vs. linux X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:04:12 -0000 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.