4 ms·
> but lacking in sufficient charisma to create more than a small following. IMO it's not that Linus has more charisma than Theo, it's simply the network effect
by knocte 7y ago
> but lacking in sufficient charisma to create more than a small following.
IMO it's not that Linus has more charisma than Theo, it's simply the network effect of one project over the other.
- dleslie 7y agoIt wasn't Linus; it was RedHat, SuSE, and the rest of the early commercial Linux endeavours.
- ggg3 7y agowhich makes the permissive BSD license even worse in hindsight. it allowed microsoft and apple to profit hugely while giving nothing back. and in the end GPL produced much better product that was used by the industry despite the less permissive license. ...and today we are making the exact same mistake with AGPL.
- knocte 7y agoRight, this is what I said.
- spacemanmatt 7y agoSeems like the history of science and technology is littered with crackpots (alchemists, egotists, etc) who made amazing discoveries.
- Andrew_nenakhov 7y agoThe difference is because of the license. GPL license (created by Stallman, btw) won over BSD license. The emergence of a GPL-licensed kernel was inevitable. If Linux didn't appear when it did, some other kernel would appear. Maybe folks would have more motivation to work on Hurd, and it would be the main kernel for everything now.
- proverbialbunny 7y agoWhy is that the case? Isn't the BSD license more relaxed? I would think companies like RedHat would have liked the BSD license more.
- Miraste 7y agoIts more relaxed nature is the problem. Linux is strong not because of Red Hat or any of the other contributors individually, but from their collective efforts--which they're required to make open by the GPL. BSD doesn't have this, so you end up with companies like Apple building whole ecosystems around a BSD kernel (not so much now, but once upon a time) without improving BSD as a whole at all.
- dleslie 7y agoIt was inevitable insofar as, at least, the GNU project was intending to make one.