Childish names and Linux

Actually, IIRC, all the debian releases are named after Toy Story characters.

 

Red Hat & Fedora, the names was decided by a small group of people internal to Red Hat, but has become a community process for the Fedora releases.

 

That makes two of us. I'm guessing he's a window$ drone, but I don't know and I don't care enough to investigate further. I'll just say that--his problem aside--I think the 'childish' names are just fine. Even though I am, or was, a hard-core *nix programmer/sysadmin, very serious and very matter of fact when it came to getting things done, I LIKE a little whimsy in my life. I don't see the names as childish so much as whimsical. And that suits me fine.

Now let me get some more work done with my Precise Pangolin.

 

I believe its just a name. Doesn't matter what the name is, as long as the operating system is good, use it as you like.

 

The author of that article assumes Linux wants for profit businesses to join.

The truth is, nobody wants Linux to succeed as a for profit os.

Linux should remain Open Source, and if using childish names can keep greedy for profit companies away from it. They should use childish names all the time.

 

I agree. I like that it is free, and businesses should like that its free. The name deosnt matter, as long as the OS can do what it needs to.

 

I'm almost certain this man does...

He's ploughed enough of his personal fortune into a Linux OS. I suspect he wants to see a return on it.

Canonical have partnered with Amazon, for Ubuntu One. They're now doing some serious business here in China, with monetizing Ubuntu...Kylin, which is in partnership with the government. The company provides paid support services for Ubuntu, and is presumably profitable.

In the past it's rather difficult for companies to make money from Linux OSs, and to stay in business. like Mandrake or Mandriva or whatever they call it now, Lindows was another one. Although RedHat has been in the commercial Linux OS business for a long time. And RHEL is a very successful commercial distro, a lot of companies use it, as is the free version CentOS.

 

See, I don't CARE if Linux is used by some people/companies for profit. That's fine and dandy with me, in fact, because it's WORTH money, especially in situations where the company makes its own Linux, sells it to companies, supports it, etc. Why shouldn't that be for profit? As long as Linux proper is always open source and free for people like us, I'm good with it. More power to Red Hat for earning its place with a hugely profitable Linux. And good for the rest of us who can pick and choose and tweak and disassemble and recompile all the free versions available.

 

The good thing is no large mega company can come in and buy out Linux to keep it from prospering.

Long Live LINUX!!!

 

I agree. Companies should make Linux work better for their systems. Or, it can be used to make OS for campanies, as long as it is open source, thats all that matters.