On Mar 21, 2005, at 7:17 PM, Tracy R Reed wrote:
Couldn't it be that you don't see dependency problems from proprietary
software because you don't get the code or the opportunity to compile it
for yourself? I am pretty sure proprietary systems have even more
trouble in this area.
So *what*?
I get *so* tired of the open-source advocates saying: "Well it's worse over there!"
Quit making excuses for a failure.
If it's a pain in the ass, it doesn't matter if I'm using proprietary or open source. It's still a pain in the ass.
If it's so *easy*, why don't all programs ship a version which includes source for all of the dependent libraries and a script to build them all in place? Everything is open-source, after all. Simple. Because they can't get it to work, *either*.
I'm not yelling at Terry, specifically, about this. He just happened to voice a comment I hear too often in the open source community that pisses me off.
Some projects are better than others. However, far too many open source projects assume "FooBar Linux 2.5.9" in their compile and install mechanisms. At least the *BSD folks assume that things need to work on *BSD *and* Linux. That gets them 90% of the way to doing it right.
-a
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
