On Nov 2, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Grant Shipley wrote:
On 11/2/06, Grant Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I always find this to be a funny statement. Looking at the source
code would take WAY more time then just looking at the filesystem.
Unless you are a contributing member of the project, looking at the
source code of just about anything can be an excercise in
frustration. Don't believe me?
Granted the complexity of this project is not on par with KHTML but I
honestly did the following today.
Downloaded a plugin to view multiple log files in eclipse (think tail
-f). I did not like the way it defaulted the tab name to the
filename. I wanted to be able to specify the tab name. I went to the
project homepage, downloaded the source, imported into eclipse, made
my change, compiled the new plugin, tested it, and the deployed the
new plugin.
So, having the source does matter.
I used that example because I actually worked on KHTML back before it
became the behemoth that it is today. That was a bug I fixed,
although I believe my patch was ultimately rejected because it broke
binary compatibility. Even back then, it took quite a while to track
down where that was actually occurring in the code.
I always feel better about using programming tools that I have the
source to. For applications that I am using and not writing, I just
want them to work, and if it means using a closed-source alternative,
I will take it if the tradeoff comes out in my favor. With iPhoto,
the tradeoff is definitely in my favor. Photoshop on the other hand,
not so much. :) Gimp works just great. But the majority of graphic
artists would heartily disagree with me.
Grant
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
