>>>I don't think there is any major technical reason to claim that Linux is not Unix.
>>>
>>>Peter Robinson
>>
>>I don't think so either. Apparently, neither do many of Sun's customers. Sun is the one feeling the heat from all the migrations to Linux. Even giving away Solaris isn't helping. Sun has no desktop monoply to leverage, and StarOffice isn't pulling folks away from MS Office to SO on Solaris as fast as Sun would like, but it is giving folks a reason to move to Linux. What do you think, five more years and Sun is history?
>>Jerry
>
>
>Yeah, now that you put it that way, I have to agree (though it will longer than 5 years). Sun has two major products: Solaris and the Sun Workstation. The former can be replaced by Linux and the second will be majorly impacted by Intel 64 bit processors.
>
>Now the biggie: Is MSFT history? If Apple can build a beautiful GUI on top of BSD, I'm sure someone in the next ten years will do the same for Intel and Linux. I know it will take a long time but ultimately I think most folks will prefer Linux.
>
>It may be the prevalence of Windows borne viruses that tips the balance. They are getting really irritating. (Not for me but my clients.)
>
>Just a guess on my part. Have never used Linux.
>
>Peter

What you surmize is one reason why Redmond is not setting still on the political front. There they have clout ($Billions and billions and billions) that Linux doesn't have, and they are doing their best to hamper open source developers and software the best they can. So far it is draconian EULAs (which works more for Linux than it helps them), the DMCA, and now the SSSCA, which is nothing less than an anti-Linux-GPL piece of legislation that Sen Hollings is trying to sneak through the senate without due process.