Linux a Product? Of Course Not!

A commentary from ZDNet argued
that Linux is not a product. Moreover, the author had raised the following points.

1. Linux is a process
2. Linux is clearly an infrastructure technology
3. Linux is an open platform

I agree Linux is not a product, but I do not believe it is a process or
infrastructure technology. I would only see Linux a kernel. It is just some commerical companies
such as Redhat, SuSE, Mandrake, and some voluntary community like "Debian",
bundle a collection of tools, utilities and other open or
even close source software to make it a complete, fully functional OS. There is no standard
"Linux" distribution, only the kernel.

I cannot see where I can find a process from Linux, or does he mean the development process?
Linux development is mainly controlled by Linus Torvald, with Alan Cox and Marcelo Tosatti maintaining the stable kernel source.
Or should he mean a process, or a way to create a kernel in GPL style?

Linux is not an infrastructure technology, but Linux implemented many open standard
infrastructure technology like TCP/IP and even proprietary technology such as IPX and AppleTalk.
If it is a infrastructure technology, how about Windows? Windows has
much more market share than Linux, is it an infrastructure technology at all?

Although I do not agree the author's first two point, I do admit that Linux is a open plaform.
It is not only a platform to share, but also allow different individual, groups or companies
to "patch" the Linux kernel in order to suit their own need and packaging it as their own product.
Linux for embedded and Real-time systems are two good examples.
Of course, the patched Linux kernel must be compilance to GPL and is distributed
with the modified source code.