19 May
2009
19 May
'09
2:26 p.m.
Bob Ham wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 10:37 +0200, Fons Adriaensen
wrote:
Both metaphors are error coloured.
If a community will do something together as an free alternative, than
nobody can command to get something that fit to his needs so much tuned,
as if he has paid for something.
But it's stupid for a free alternative, if working stuff can become
absolutely incompatible to older versions or cause major troubles for
many used functions.
I'm speaking in general, not especially for the different threads about
the rc files and dbus.
If people call attention to things that can cause trouble in the future
or that cause trouble right now, than it's not clever to answer, that he
should do it by himself, pay for something etc..
Ideas, different opinions or getting aware of something other people
haven't noticed and refer to it, isn't an attack against the people that
are working for free, especially not if it comes from people who do
their self work without being paid.
I'm using Linux since years (not rt-audio ;)) and the architecture of
Linux has one big disadvantage. You might have a Linux that is fine, the
times are changing and in addition you need an absolutely new
application, but you don't need to update any of the applications you're
using since years.
You can't install the new application, because dependencies needs to be
updated and that causes that also your perfect working applications
needs to be updated.
You do an update. The new applications is fine. The old, updated
applications ...
... are fine
... but not all, some are broken ...
... others are fine for new work, but you can't load old projects any
more ...
... other applications can't be installed any more ... etc. ...
Sometimes a coder or a packer (packages builder?!) don't work as
intensive with 'hi' application as the community does, so he can fail to
see some issues.
Resume: If something was fine, it's not an advantage if it gets broken.
If something needs to be broken, because of the development, it
shouldn't be released. We won't practise on stage, we practise in the
rehearsal room.
Sorry, I need to write this,
Ralf
Someone sets up a firm that provides a free
service:
they enhance your life by removing things from your
home and disposing of them.
One day I return home and find some things have been
removed.
I go the manager of the free service and tell him:
- Listen, I don't want you to enter my home and
remove things uninvited.
- But then I can't do my job !
- So you are thieves ?
- No, no, no, we just provide a free service
that enhances your life.
I have to say, I think this is really out of line, Fons. Implying free
software developers are theives because they've changed something and
you don't like it is quite extraordinary.
I think a better analogy would be like so:
Someone sets up a firm that provides and maintains free furniture,
appliances, plumbing and electricity for anybody's home.
One day, you come home and find half of your radiators don't work
because someone has started upgrading the plumbing and hasn't finished
yet.
You go to the manager of the free service and tell him:
- Listen, I don't want you to stop the radiators in my house from
working.
- That's fine, you're entirely free to install your own plumbing, or fix
the plumbing we've installed for you.
- I don't want to, you should do it for me and do it right dammit!