Re: RH and GNOME
> > > 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.
The GPL doesn't matter a whit in these cases. The GPL doesn't prohibit
someone from starting a deplorable trend that is utterly not in
complience with 'standards'. The GPL doesn't prohibit RedHat from putting
Enlightenment in
/lib/modules/graphics/2.1.109/Enlightenment/e.binary/enlightenment -- No
matter how deplorable that is. And if RedHat does it and starts a trend,
the developers who use RedHat will follow that trend... And break
compatibility on other systems.
For example, there are lots of programs that want to install themselves in
/opt. RedHat has /opt. I hate /opt and no system I ever admin will have
/opt unless it's Solaris.
> > Why would we want to install enlighment in /opt?
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
>
> [1] Enlightenment isn't part of any OS,
> [2] 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.
You're not good at drawing a point out of an analogy, are you? It was a
generalization, which just for this moment happens to apply to something
RL.
>
> > 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.
Which has nothing to do with what he's saying, I believe.
You're very literal minded so let me give you an example that would apply.
It's just an example, so don't argue it.
Say that RedHat takes it into their skull to write a proprietory libc /
dynamic loader (ld). Programmers run RedHat. They program with the new
libc. Bam, an industry standard, like Microsoft word.
> > If somehow one of the players becomes the dominant player we may be
> > forced to adopt their "industry standards" even if they are inferior
> > products.
>
> True, but not particularly relevant for the case of GPLed code (unless,
> like KDE, it's GPLed but not really GPLed code).
Yes, it is just as relevent for GPL'd code as it is for anything else..
the license is irrelevent.
-Kysh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: