On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Fitz wrote:
> Now don't get me wrong, I love LICQ (now that it runs), and It works well. But I
>wish
> programmers wouldn't post Binaries when they don't always work the way they say they
>do, it just
> doesn't do them justice.
Fair enough :) I didn't realise we had posted binaries of Licq on the
site. As far as I recalled Qt 2.1 beta 3 is only available in source form
from ftp.troll.no/pub/qt/source (from memory). I'm a bit annoyed that
we're jumping so far ahead with Qt (need to upgrade to another 2.1 beta
each release of Licq :P) But that's just devel for ya :)
> > It's to allow people to enlighten and better
> > themselves through mutual understanding and co-operation. I honestly hope people
>who think that
> > it should be the best thing since sliced breadshould go use Microsoft software
>until they die and
> > be paying Bill Gatesfor that last slice of bread, because that's all they deserve.
>
>
> Mutual understanding for those who read the source code, bugger the rest of you.
> Shouldn't Linux be more than a collective pet project for the learned elitists?
>That's like
> a bunch of inventors getting together to create a machine that does nothing. If
>Linux
> isn't the best thing since sliced bread, why do you peddle Linux to aeronautical,
>military
> or emergency services as viable alternatives? I'm sure they deserve more than what
>you think
> Linux should be. .
>
> "Here's Linux, use it, its stable....rant rant.....but don't blame me if it
>fails, after all you
> shouldn't expect it to be the best thing since sliced bread......down with
>Microsoft, up the
> working class, pass the crack pipe"
>
> As an Engineer, you have certain expectations, one of which is to be truthful
>and straight
> forward. If something might work, fine , don't say that it does.
I don't think people need to be able to understand source to understand
Linux. My sliced bread comment was a little unfocussed, what I mean is,
Linux is made with the primary goal of making things better by promoting
co-operation.
Through this co-operative development, we have a stable, highly powerful
operating system which makes an extremely viable alternative to other
server OS', for cost, features and stability.
The push to the desktop isn't really something that has entertained me
much. It's created too much of a divide amongst Linux enthusiasts. Many
believe that since Linux is being pushed to the desktop, it should be
forced on everybody which is simply not the case.
I believe it is a strong server OS and a desktop OS for the "learned
elitists". But shouldn't be forced upon general desktop users just yet.
For the server market? Yes. Most definitely it's a worthwhile
alternative.
And the best part is, if something isn't to their liking, they have a
problem or what have you, they can report it to the developers and you can
almost be guaranteed that they will take notice and you will either get a
prompt fix, or a temporary workaround as well as mention in the next
release for any compatibility problems.
This is how Linux works, and is also why it works so well.
Andrew.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
