2 Nov
2016
2 Nov
'16
3:12 p.m.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:07:18 +0100
Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Of course. But I would need some evidence that this is
somehow
important.
One important thing in being able to read source code (as that would be
linked to the GPL) is the possibility to go through actual working code
and not only examples.
Keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands of
hobbyist
developers who are writing great software and not making it "free" or
even open-source. And the world doesn't end.
There is one thing, as I just replied to Massimo, is that at the
beginning, and for quite some time until today, a lot of professionals
supported the Linux project with code. Being professionals, they
injected a way of doing things that is far from the hobbyist (if you
compare for instance with many (not all) Windows freeware). This has
tainted the movement since the early days. This dedication to make
something good. Might not be great, but well done.
And notice, in regards to its sustainability,
Microsoft itself makes
sure programs are backwards and forwards compatible for as long as
possible.
Hmmmm.... IBM yes, Microsoft, not so. So many companies stick to
older MS software because of the problems linked to upgrading, for
instance.
In a way, the Linux ecosystem, by being so unstable
and prone to
constant changes
that are compatibility-careless has created the problem it is not
claiming to be in such a good position to solve.
An upgrade can contain instabilities, when all the many different parts
are considered, as well as their interactions. Not to mention
dependencies put into packaging systems. This is why the notion that
was mentioned here, in the context of proprietary vs. Open Source, that
someone reading a forum can decide to implement a function in a
software, or to fix a bug, is largely fantasy. It happens, but not so
much. Not an argument to bring forth when comparing to companies.
Because if people start to implement stuff and fix bugs without forking
their own projects, it will lead to SW maintenance hell and will
prevent eventually further developments.
One thing he says is that "free" software
allows people to learn and
to share.
Perhaps. But proprietary software allows to do that as well. There are
other ways
to learn, but taking someone else's program and studying the code.
In fact, I would argue it is better to go through a
tutorial or read
a book then try
to study someone else's code. Looking through code not written by
yourself is very ineffective.
The optimized way is a combination of both. Only source code can be
tenuous and actually taking more time, depending on the complexity of
the subject. After the notions are learned, having working, from the
field, software code to go through can be beneficial. In a sense this
has to do with not having to reinvent the wheel. The quality of the
code also matters and this brings back the professional inspiration
that supported (supports) Linux for quite some time.
Still, this is no argument for the musician to choose Linux. There
must be some good reasons...
Cheers.