19 Dec
2004
19 Dec
'04
6:27 p.m.
On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 21:34, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 17:32 +0100, Marek Peteraj
wrote:
Oh really?
I think this isn't the point. The point is,
that even if the application
itself is free as in beer, you may encounter problems when trying to run
it, like:
./scala: error while loading shared libraries: libgnarl-3.4.so: cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
The closed source model just isn't flexible enough in the open source
world since more technically capable users are not allowed to fix such
problems on their own and contribute by sending back.
Yeah, I really hate those cryptic error messages like "No such file or
directory".
Please. Any "technically capable" user would figure out in a
microsecond that the above means you are missing a library that the
binary is linked against. It even tells you exactly which fscking file
you need. The fix is apt-get install libgnarl or whatever. You would
get a very similar error trying to compile the program if you didn't
have the libgnarl-devel package installed. This is not a question of
open vs closed source it's USER ERROR.
So what if there's libgnarl 6.7 available, with changed APIs and all
that or what if Scala or whatever app can be happily compiled against
3.2 or 3.6 or whatever else?
There are much better examples to illustrate your point (like the old
story of RMS and the printer driver). Even for a troll that's pretty
weak.
Read my messages again and *think* before you respond. Idiot.
End of discussion.