18 Dec
2004
18 Dec
'04
7:31 p.m.
On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 22:44, John Check wrote:
On Saturday 18 December 2004 10:20 am, Dave Robillard
wrote:
Simply because they are not aware of the idea of open source at
all(people that use other operating systems).
Open source is about flexibility, control, trust, quality and eternal
life of your favorite application. You should care even if you don't
know how to code at all.
On Fri, 2004-17-12 at 15:28 -0500, John Check
wrote:
pWn3d
On Friday 17 December 2004 01:04 pm, Paul
Brossier wrote:
Correction: What's good to advance YOUR personal cause is good apps.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 04:18:15PM +0100, Andreas
Kuckartz wrote:
> future"). But he made this offer: "However if someone makes a
> Debian package for it, I'll be happy to distribute it."
oh well, without (!) the source code there is no point anyway...
Nah, nobody is interested in running the app, just dickering about
licensing...
Frankly, I _really_ don't think there's room for elitism coming from LAU
because non-free software currently kicks our asses up and down the
street as far as functionality goes. What's good to advance the cause is
good apps. The source doesn't matter. Hell, I'd pay a dollar not to hear
such silliness before I'd complain about gratis-ware The source doesn't matter to YOU.
Source of the apps, not source code. All of the good things about free
software are not constants that apply in every case or context.
It's the fact's Jack, for most people source code is worth bupkis.
Linux as an audio platform is about the _runtime_. Linux audio _development_
is about the source code.
Not really, it's both about sourcecode and runtime. That's the main
difference.
If you want to walk the
altruism walk, you do IIRC, have the skills to fix what you see as evil.
I have a hard time
believing Andreas' statement is coming from a need to audit every line of
code on his system.
You don't need to audit it as long as you have the source code itself.
Marek