3 ms·
OK at least the idea that it’s mostly sectarian disputes makes sense. I do wonder though, if most Corps want as much leverage and rights for themselves, why di
by ls612 2y ago
OK at least the idea that it’s mostly sectarian disputes makes sense.
I do wonder though, if most Corps want as much leverage and rights for themselves, why did Linux largely “win” in the enterprise world.
- SpecialistK 2y agoThere's a few theories: * the legal disputes with AT&T meant that Linux was an earlier Free and Open Source Unix-compatible and gained momentum * the leadership of the respective BSDs are more conservative or "picky" with their merges, requiring sufficient documentation and cross-architecture support * the BSDs are 4+ different projects rather than one upstream Linux kernel, making contributions harder * permissive licenses mean that a company using BSD code does not have to announce or share their changes to customers, making BSD adoption harder to notice (unless you read all of the fine print)