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.
Bill, you are talking rubbish now. To debug a program you need the
source code.
If I only have half the source code, (i.e half open source, half closed
source), I still cannot do proper debugging tasks, because I don't have
proper visibility of all the source code. There are some software bugs
that you HAVE to have the full source code in order to fully debug.
James
-------------------------------------------------------
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
