On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 22:27 -0800, Bill Unruh wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:02 +0200, Sergei Steshenko wrote: > >> I was talking about the moral/ideological issue. > >> > >> My point is that from moral/ideological point of view it doesn't make > >> sense to insist on OSS only in one case. > > > > It's not a moral or ideological issue, it's a technical one - there's no > > reasonable way to debug a program if the source code is not available. > > Sure there is. Most software is closed source and most software is also > debugged. Not by you or me, but by someone. And for the vast majority of > users, they have to wait for someone else to do it. I agree completely that > opensource is great and would love all software to be be opensource. But > that battle is not won by making silly statements.
I have not made any silly statements. Yes, closed source is debugged, by the people who have the source code. If parts of the kernel are allowed to be closed source it becomes impossible for anyone except the people who have the source code to the closed part to debug it. Lee ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Alsa-user mailing list Alsa-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user
