Would anyone have continued to use windows without a TCP/IP stack of their own till the mid 2000? Apple?
Inarguably in the face of the growing ubiquity of the Internet. Ms and Apple being able to just swipe the BSD stacks, giving little to nothing back. Definitely didn’t help. Which isn’t even considering what adoption *nix systems might have seen. Had Microsoft not only missed early adoption. But then struggled to implement a decent stack at the same time.
Had it not been for it’s license and the court battle at the time. There likely would be no Linux and we’d have all been running BSD based systems for decades now.
Wasn’t it the fact that Windows included TCP/IP that led to the consolidation of networking around TCP/IP out of dozens of alternative protocols?
This discussion isn’t meaningful without an account of how much proprietary contribution there has been to the Linux (or other GPL) network stacks. In any case, somehow BSD survived.
And none of this alters the fact that whinging about other people’s choice of software license is entitled as fuck.
No. Not really. Microsoft also included token ring networking and multiple others. Now however, most people would think you were a pothead if you mentioned token ring.
Before Microsoft adopted the MIT licensed BSD stack. There were small and large alternatives. Novel netware being a huge one on the corporate side. For both Mac and PC. When I went to school for network management, we learned netware.
AT&T had much much more influence on it’s adoption. By the 90s, if you were procuring network infrastructure, it was generally Ethernet and TCP IP. Microsoft supported it in lan manager and NT. It was also an option for Windows 3.11 and 95. But Microsoft didn’t even ship it as a base part of their home operating system until Windows 98. Even Apple beat them on that technicality.
There has arguably been much more commercial support proprietary and otherwise of GPL than MIT licensed software. Not even close. Sony, Apple and a ton of big companies use BSD or MIT licensed code. You could do pages and pages. A practical who’s who of the tech industry as to who has borrowed MIT code. The ones that contributed back wouldn’t hardly justify a footnote. Most GPL projects, especially the big ones, have pages listing many, many corporate sponsorships and supporters, not just the Linux kernel.
I never judged anyone for their license choice. Use the unlicense for all I care. But those sort of licenses as a rule don’t generate much actual support or contribution back.
Would anyone have continued to use windows without a TCP/IP stack of their own till the mid 2000? Apple?
Inarguably in the face of the growing ubiquity of the Internet. Ms and Apple being able to just swipe the BSD stacks, giving little to nothing back. Definitely didn’t help. Which isn’t even considering what adoption *nix systems might have seen. Had Microsoft not only missed early adoption. But then struggled to implement a decent stack at the same time.
Had it not been for it’s license and the court battle at the time. There likely would be no Linux and we’d have all been running BSD based systems for decades now.
Wasn’t it the fact that Windows included TCP/IP that led to the consolidation of networking around TCP/IP out of dozens of alternative protocols?
This discussion isn’t meaningful without an account of how much proprietary contribution there has been to the Linux (or other GPL) network stacks. In any case, somehow BSD survived.
And none of this alters the fact that whinging about other people’s choice of software license is entitled as fuck.
No. Not really. Microsoft also included token ring networking and multiple others. Now however, most people would think you were a pothead if you mentioned token ring.
Before Microsoft adopted the MIT licensed BSD stack. There were small and large alternatives. Novel netware being a huge one on the corporate side. For both Mac and PC. When I went to school for network management, we learned netware.
AT&T had much much more influence on it’s adoption. By the 90s, if you were procuring network infrastructure, it was generally Ethernet and TCP IP. Microsoft supported it in lan manager and NT. It was also an option for Windows 3.11 and 95. But Microsoft didn’t even ship it as a base part of their home operating system until Windows 98. Even Apple beat them on that technicality.
There has arguably been much more commercial support proprietary and otherwise of GPL than MIT licensed software. Not even close. Sony, Apple and a ton of big companies use BSD or MIT licensed code. You could do pages and pages. A practical who’s who of the tech industry as to who has borrowed MIT code. The ones that contributed back wouldn’t hardly justify a footnote. Most GPL projects, especially the big ones, have pages listing many, many corporate sponsorships and supporters, not just the Linux kernel.
I never judged anyone for their license choice. Use the unlicense for all I care. But those sort of licenses as a rule don’t generate much actual support or contribution back.