Re: RH and GNOME
Enrique Zanardi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > The GPL means that it can be the same kernel, that's what.
> But why would we want to use all that stupid extensions (perhaps not only
> stupid, but unstable, degrading performance, causing random data
> corruption, blue screens of death or whoknowswhat)?
I think you're confusing Linux with Windows. Windows is the one
that's not GPLed.
> Why would we want to install enlighment in /opt?
What does that have to do with anything?
 Enlightenment isn't part of any OS,
 Enlightenment is PRE-ALPHA software.
For all I care, enlightenment could be installed in /var/tmp/ -- it
doesn't matter because anything compatible with these development
versions of enlightenment are GUARANTEED to break by the time
the final release comes around.
> Just because it is the "industry standard", a la Microsoft Word?
Why am I even bothering to respond to this?
Microsoft Word is not GPLed. Microsoft Word is not a part of Linux,
and Microsoft Word does not get installed in /opt/. Probably the
most significant of those points is that Microsoft Word is not GPLed.
> GPLed code doesn't guarantee good code.
Yet GPLed apps tend to be significantly higher quality than comparable
This is one of the big value-added features of the free software
> If somehow one of the players becomes the dominant player we may be
> forced to adopt their "industry standards" even if they are inferior
True, but not particularly relevant for the case of GPLed code (unless,
like KDE, it's GPLed but not really GPLed code).
> We must work as hard as we can to offer an interesting option, to give
> things that the other distros don't give, to keep being an important
> player in this game, just to avoid Linux becoming a de-facto monopoly.
And there's better reasons that that. [Better goals, too.]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org