-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stewart Stremler wrote:
> Possibly. But I'm not really comparing along that axis; I'm comparing > "modern" open-source projects with "old" open-source projects. I don't > recall this sort of huge dependency graph when I first started using > Linux. Linux and associated software has gotten a great deal more sophisticated since the old days. I have been using Linux since '93 and you are right, it was easier to compile stuff then. But we didn't have huge libraries of graphical toolkits and stuff encrypt this and network with that. Linux is vastly more capable now and with more capabilities comes more code and more complexity. I completely agree that things need to continue to improve. We probably need some more standards and best practices for everyone adhere to so it all meshes better. But there are just as many religious wars in that area as there are in others which are going to make it a long and difficult process. > If I appear to criticize open-source more than proprietary software, that's > because I'm more dismayed by the failure of open-source to live up to its > promise (and promises). The quality of OSS should be an order of magnitude > _higher_, with a concomitant reduction in feature addition. It has given you the freedom to fix all of these things yourself IFF you so desire. That is the only real promise ever made. It never promised to be perfect or perfectly portable. - -- 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 iD8DBQFCP6b+9PIYKZYVAq0RAuhYAKCZyyZgRXLqc0gMJQWRc+x9kfqZGACfbrBy Kwc243JRIxSobgypbbSxViM= =uZRl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
