begin quoting Andrew Lentvorski as of Mon, May 12, 2008 at 05:51:52PM -0700: > Gus Wirth wrote: > >Gregory K. Ruiz-Ade wrote: > >>On May 12, 2008, at 4:23 AM, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > >> > >>>The "Doesn't work anywhere but RedHat or Linux" is simple laziness. > >>>*Especially* given how easy VM systems are to set up for software > >>>development. > >> > >> > >>I suppose we should learn to never underestimate the laziness of > >>[free] software developers. > > > >I don't understand how the developer is somehow obligated to solve this > >problem. Every time you (generically) say "they should just do ..." > >means you are putting a burden on them.
Not unless there's an "or else" in there. > > Who the hell are you to create > >additional work for someone else without being their employer or > >relative? Some developers will gladly fix things when pointed out, but > >if they don't you still have no right to complain. > > Then what's the point of releasing the software? Releasing FOSS software has a couple of purposes. One of them is acclaim. The downside of this sort of thing is that if one releases crap, one should expect some negative feedback. Devising a means of turning negative feedback into constructive criticism is an exercise best left up to the maintainer. "My code sucks? How? Where did it break? Try this, does it help?" Users *ALWAYS* have a right to complain. Everyone in the FOSS community should bristle at the thought of being told they don't have a right to complain about software. Don't brag if you don't want a smackdown. > And, I disagree. Releasing the software has become a *request* for *my* > attention. Otherwise, keep your trap shut and the software private. Anyone releasing software with an auto-update feature ought to have their ducks in a row. Same goes for anyone who compares themselves with another program, especially favorable comparisons. Same goes for anyone asking for support/donations. > >It's not your > >software and you're not paying anything to get it fixed. Go use > >something else. > > I do. > > In fact, there are now a couple of "minimum hurdles" that, if broken, > consign the software to the trash, untried. > > 1) No testing. This is just a dealbreaker. Without tests, the software > will never move forward. > > 2) No cross platform. If it doesn't run on FreeBSD/Solaris/OS > X/something non-Linux, it goes into the trashcan. This is stickier than > even just "runs on multiple Linux". This is an indicator of how > well-written the software is. If it is too difficult to port to > FreeBSD, the software is written poorly. > > 3) Root to install. If software requires root for no good reason, it > goes into the trash. Heh. I recognize those. I just have 'em in the opposite order, and perhaps not quite so stringent. -- Hate pkginfo. Hate hate hate. See this? This is venom. Acidic venom! Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
