Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> But they should call it Linux if they really base it on Linux

  I don't think using the linux kernel requires for the OS to have the
word "linux" in its name.

  MacOS X has a BSD variant named Darwin as kernel, but the OS is still
not named "Darwin".

  In the modern world it would be just plain silly to try to write a
completely new OS from scratch, at least not for desktop computers. If
you make it incompatible with all existing software, nobody would use it.
Thus you just have to make it compatible. The only software you can
rationally make a new OS compatible with is Unix software (because of
all the existing open source resources to do that, something you just
don't have for the two biggest proprietary operating systems). Thus the
only rational choice is to make the OS Unix-based. But why go through
the trouble of creating one from scratch when there are tons of existing,
open source ones, which have decades of development experience poured
into them?

  There would be basically only three possible choices for the kernel:
Linux, NetBSD (or maybe one of the others) or Solaris. Since Linux is
by far the most popular one, and it has good hardware support, it seems
like the rational choice.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message