-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote: > > 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.
Hmm... I guess it depends on what you call a failure then. This reminds me of: Person 1: "America sucks!" Person 2: "Don't like it? Try living somewhere else! It's much worse over there." Person 3: "Quit making excuses for a failure!" I never intended to imply that open source was perfect. Only that it is much better. Democracy sucks. But not nearly so much as the other forms of government. > 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. Programming computers is a pain in the ass in general and we are a long way from making it easy. Some of us happen to be masochists and enjoy coding and debugging etc. Some of us enjoy compiling stuff too. Maybe compiling code and resolving dependencies isn't your kink. That's fine. > 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*. Never said it was easy. Do you rail this way against programming in general? > 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. Tracy. :) > 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. But none of them are perfect right? It takes a lot of work to generalize everything such that it will compile everywhere and make everyone happy. I think it is more a deficiency in the state of the art than it is anyones fault exactly. - -- Tracy R Reed http://ultraviolet.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCP6XO9PIYKZYVAq0RAsCYAKCHcY3N8qAwdjr+f4sRj9smo86AhwCgnBt6 JmyVrIF0o1aOao35eFPR+5c= =FCWE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
