This is an aggregated response. If the lack of attribution
upsets you, I apologise.
> A majority of the software for the Linux platform is distributed in
> source code form.
That's the open source business model. It's a service model. You
pay for service, not for acquisition. That's fine for high-
volume markets, but it doesn't work for everyone. We've chosen a
mixed model.
We're not alone. Look also at products such as UltraEdit and
BeyondCompare, both of which are now available for Linux. And we
have paid for them.
> When dealing with free, open source software coded
> largely by volunteers you can take it a stage further -
> you can get involved and fix it.
We are involved in open source projects, probably just not ones
that float your particular boat.
> Finally, I don't disagree with the idea that a package
> management system that simplifies installation across
> all distributions is a good one, but I do take issue
> with someone complaining about the state of things when
> they could be doing something positive about it, one way
> or another.
I would have said that I don't have the skill set for this - I'm
not, and don't want to be, a Linux kernel guru. However, I have
talked to a number of people who produce proprietary Linux apps
in niche markeys, and they all agree that packaging is a real
PITA. We may even consider writing a Linux install system for
human beings. Interested people are welcome to contact me, but
please don't send me philosophical rants about the evils of
proprietary software. My flame-proof suit is good - I've been on
standards committees for many years.
> There is absolutely zero incentive for the Linux distros
> to make life easier for binary only distributors as it
> stifles innovation.
That's just "proof by repeated assertion".
There is a significant proportion of the compiler-writing
community who believe that gcc has stifled compiler innovation.
In the opinion of many it's an "adequate" compiler. The x86-32
and x86-64 compilers are have huge commercial input, but are far
from best-in-class. For other targets, e.g. ARM and Cortex,
despite the funding of Codesourcery by ARM, the gcc compiler
just isn't very good.
The downside of gcc is that it has become dominant in certain
sectors because it is free (beer). Dominance doesn't mean good.
Open source doesn't necessarily mean good (quality).
Regards, Stephen
P.S. If you are sending a response to the list, I really don't
need separate email copies.
P.P.S. Thank you to those who have sent direct emails with
offers of support. I'll get back to you in the coming week.
--
Stephen Pelc, stephen@???
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web:
http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
