S
Sam
>This is a pretty vague example. What kind of shared library
>change are you talking about? When linux libraries are changed,
>they are to add new API's, or fix broken API's that don't work as
>documented. If you are talking about the switch from libc5 to
>libc6, you are also spreading misinformation. You can still use
>libc5 and libc6 at the same time.
My original statement was about the change in the library format. It has been a while when it happened. Back when I used Linux regularly the shared library format itself was changed. I can't
remember what the type formats were. I think one of them was similar to how Sun did theirs. The point is that just as Microsoft changes their software platform so can "open" source. The change between different versions of libraries is also a maintenance problem. Yes, you can run multiple versions of the same shared library, but it is a maintenance issue. My point is that change can happen on any platform. People blame proprietary software companies like Microsoft, Sun, HP, IBM, SGI and others for making changes in their operating system that cause problems for
them down the road. Well, the same thing can happen with any operating system. If Linux is not in vogue in 5 years then someone can end up in a situation like the example where the computer
hardware is obsolete, but the OS can't handle the new hardware. In either case you will have write your own driver. What's the difference?
>This is wrong. Open source does not mean inexpensive source
>at all. Open source means you have the source. The source
>may be free, or it may come with a purchase price. You may
>have a license to make changes, you might not.
>
>Open source may not be well developed, but at least you have the
>opportunity to look at the code and make that decision before you
>run it, instead of needing to run it to find out if its bad.
>
>Closed source programs are always well documented either, and
>since you don't have the source its much more difficult to figure it
>out on your own, or find someone that can.
>
>But getting back to the message that you responded too, to bring
>things back into context, open source doesn't make new
>hardware work automatically, if you have the source (and license
>to change it), it is still posible for you to get your system to run
>again even if the vender won't, or won't do it for a reasonable price.
Wrong for you maybe. I don't see the benefit of having source to the operating system. I believe that you should minimize the software that you develop and it is hard for me to see a good business reason for fiddling with operating system source or anything else that I can get commercially. If I didn't think NT or OPC was going to perform then I wouldn't use them. I wouldn't use software because I have source to it. I use Samba, but I do that because it is the best software for the job, not because I can get to the source.
>change are you talking about? When linux libraries are changed,
>they are to add new API's, or fix broken API's that don't work as
>documented. If you are talking about the switch from libc5 to
>libc6, you are also spreading misinformation. You can still use
>libc5 and libc6 at the same time.
My original statement was about the change in the library format. It has been a while when it happened. Back when I used Linux regularly the shared library format itself was changed. I can't
remember what the type formats were. I think one of them was similar to how Sun did theirs. The point is that just as Microsoft changes their software platform so can "open" source. The change between different versions of libraries is also a maintenance problem. Yes, you can run multiple versions of the same shared library, but it is a maintenance issue. My point is that change can happen on any platform. People blame proprietary software companies like Microsoft, Sun, HP, IBM, SGI and others for making changes in their operating system that cause problems for
them down the road. Well, the same thing can happen with any operating system. If Linux is not in vogue in 5 years then someone can end up in a situation like the example where the computer
hardware is obsolete, but the OS can't handle the new hardware. In either case you will have write your own driver. What's the difference?
>This is wrong. Open source does not mean inexpensive source
>at all. Open source means you have the source. The source
>may be free, or it may come with a purchase price. You may
>have a license to make changes, you might not.
>
>Open source may not be well developed, but at least you have the
>opportunity to look at the code and make that decision before you
>run it, instead of needing to run it to find out if its bad.
>
>Closed source programs are always well documented either, and
>since you don't have the source its much more difficult to figure it
>out on your own, or find someone that can.
>
>But getting back to the message that you responded too, to bring
>things back into context, open source doesn't make new
>hardware work automatically, if you have the source (and license
>to change it), it is still posible for you to get your system to run
>again even if the vender won't, or won't do it for a reasonable price.
Wrong for you maybe. I don't see the benefit of having source to the operating system. I believe that you should minimize the software that you develop and it is hard for me to see a good business reason for fiddling with operating system source or anything else that I can get commercially. If I didn't think NT or OPC was going to perform then I wouldn't use them. I wouldn't use software because I have source to it. I use Samba, but I do that because it is the best software for the job, not because I can get to the source.