More than half of Windows machines are INFECTED with malware
christopher.chan at bradbury.edu.hk
Fri Oct 9 01:39:26 BST 2009
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Samuel Thurston, III wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM, John McCabe-Dansted <gmatht at gmail.com>
>>> So Google contributes almost ten times more code to the kernel than
>>> Canonical? Last I heard Canonical earns under $30 million while Google
>>> earns over $10,000 million, so Google is hundreds of times larger.
>>> Which means that Google contributes a vastly smaller slice of their
>>> income to the Linux kernel.
>> I thought about this facet of the argument, and I only wonder how much
>> of that is offset by the fact that Google's core business isn't really
>> built around Linux, and could much more easily switch to another
>> platform (say nexenta) than Canonical could eschew Linux. I'm not
>> saying your point isn't valid, just raising a possible counterpoint.
> I don't think there's any ground to judge, there. Why would Google be able
> to switch kernels any more easily than Ubuntu? I think that was my point
> way back - Ubuntu's core business isn't built around Linux either. It's
> built around Gnome, and any unix-like kernel should suffice.
Did you know that there would be some things that are way more
convenient if they did switch to OpenSolaris like no licensing issues
with distributing Nvidia drivers?
But they did not jump on that bandwagon for some reason. Look at the
effort the Nexenta guys put in to get something working with apt.
More information about the sounder