The GPL self-destruct mechanism that is killing Linux
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
The proliferation of user space apps doesn't kill an OS. You could argue the GPL helps it but again, that's not the OS. Windows also has many duplicate apps that are not very good. No GPL there.
The ".. pile of old festering hacks, endlessly copied and pasted by a clueless generation of IT 'professionals' who wouldn't recognise sound IT architecture if you hit them over the head with it.." is true in all spheres and isn't fostered by the GPL.
Am I missing something?
- Find some quotes (preferably rants) from random sources, vaguely related to your subject
- Add vague historical references
- Choose a provocative title
- Post on aggregators
- Collect comments and go back to step 1
It looks like they just took negative things about Linux/GPL and thrown them together. There's no meat.
The whole article contradicts itself. Just start with the title: "The GPL self-destruct mechanism" vs. "This is why Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has been declared the licence "viral"." A spreading virus that does harm by... killing itself?