Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?

[AstralStorm]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@xxxxxx> wrote:

> The complement of "open source" is not closed source, or at least
> "source not available". (And I doubt it's even illegal to look at
> source you have somehow got.) It includes so-called license-free 
> or license-less software [1] as well -- something I'm likely to do
> with any of my future work, if I release the source at all.

The only problem with djb's scheme is that you cannot mirror the software unless given permission from the author. No, not even unmodified source.

And in some (weird) parts of the world, all rights are reserved by default. Not just distribution rights, also use rights. So you have to spell it out that you allow people to use the software unconditionally. There's no need to disclaim warranty if you don't expect to ever be sued. (anyway, it's not sold, so most warranty rights don't apply)

Disclaimer: IANAL.

> It's been a constant downfall ever since I started using Linux in '95
> or so. None of the gripes I had then have been fixed (the bloatware
> known as the X server is still allowed to hang the system), and many 
> other things have been turned into crap, largely due to world domination
> plans. (See the "idiot box Linux" link in one of the recent posts.)

Everybody knows the story of X server development model, which has been very ineffective until recent xorg-x11 developments. It's just been 3 releases (7.0 and 7.1 count as one) since X.org took over. Cut it some slack just yet, please.

Certain commercial X servers are nice and lightweight. Go buy a licence if you hate X.org distribution. Oh, it doesn't have the drivers you need? Tough luck.
Pay your hardware developer and/or the company.

Any system that doesn't have the same user base as Windows or enough money to bribe  major hardware players will suffer the same problem.
(Apple can pay some for drivers)

BTW, why don't we see graphic systems other than X in the FOSS market?
All such projects I can recall failed: Y-Windows, Fresco...

Only Apple had enough manpower to implement its own replacement (Quartz), and they were in a better place: they were writing a system from scratch, with almost no concerns about backwards compatibility.

So, in order to start an X replacement, you have to write an operating system around it...

> Indeed, Microsoft is offering the only alternative to the suffocating
> monoculturist hegemony promoted by the major FOSS projects. (OS X
> is too much like Gnome.)

Huh? It is the Microsoft that is the monoculture.
They supply one true GUI with scarce documentation, a package of bundled software and libraries (including C library), one true media system (DirectShow) and one true configuration system - registry. And also an internet browser.
Recently the suite has been expanded with .NET runtime.

Guess what - these mostly (uhm...) work fine.

The about only difference is that people (developers external to Microsoft) bundle software with the dependencies.

I wonder why almost no distributions do that...

You can install multiple versions of the same package... it requires moderate amount of work, nothing a medium-size distribution can't handle. (e.g. some Linux-From-Scratch installation methods and GoboLinux support multiple installations of the same package)
Just some build system patches for certain software.

Oh, you want to get everything with no work on your part? Go ask your vendor... that is, upstream.

BTW, good flame bait.

>   [1]: http://www.thedjbway.org/license_free.html

Footnotes have no place in emails. Theye are not books.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature