On Thursday 14 Jun 2007 1:54:51 am Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > But maybe Skype is not so pressing to upgrade, just doesn't provide > distfiles anymore. Then maybe we don't have to obey, but still it's > really questionable if it should be marked stable at all. > Then don't mark it stable but dropping it from the tree altogether? That is taking it a bit too far imho.
> > And yeah I'm a Java dev but at least Java is now open (I admit that the > stable VM's in tree are not, yet) and I don't see that coming for Skype. > Also Java (and your examples of closed source stuff) are not infamous > for the bad stuff mentioned above. > Has any one done the same kind of analysis on all the closed source applications we have in tree? If we take an alternate view on the wikipedia link then it can be said that it is just an attempt for spreading FUD while trying to pimp Open Source alternatives? Don't get me wrong...I love open source and that is one of the reasons why I have been using GNU/Linux for many years but acting paranoid and dropping popular packages from tree is not something, I as a common user, would like to see. This is the only reason I am poking my nose in the workings of devs. -- Regards, Abhay
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
