On Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 19:08:30 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 18:43, Benno wrote: >> On Thu Dec 11, 2003 at 18:08:40 +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >> >On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 17:01, Benno wrote: >> >> >> b) Access to source code >> >> >> >> Just to clarify my choice is b) not b2) I care *more* about reading code >> >> to find bugs, and being able to make my own modifications, but care less >> >> about distribution of any changes. (This is a matter of degrees of >> >> course, the other is nice too, but not as important imho) >> > >> >Windows shared source: >> >read - tick >> >make (and implicitly use) your own changes - no tick. >> > >> >> Don't underestimate the usefulness of being able to read >> source code. > >You said that "I care *more* about reading code to find bugs, and being >able to make my own modifications, " To which, I replied with an example >where b) (not b2) only fulfilled one of the two things you listed as >caring about. MY assessment of the usefulness or not of reading source >code has *nothing* to do with my answer.
Yes, sure, and I said replied saying how just being able to read the source code is still useful, regardless of whether you can modify it or not. Simply pointing out how I still find that useful, even if it isn't *as* useful as having the code *and* being able to fix the bug myself. >> Of course if you had proper documentation and no bugs >> it would be a non-issue. > >This is in complete contradiction to your statement quoted above. > >Whats up with that? How is it in contradiction? If we had quality software which worked as advertised, and never had bugs then reading the source code wouldn't be needed. Of course, this is not the case, and most products do have bugs. Which is why I like having the source and the ability to fix the bug. Benno -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
