Re: RH and GNOME
On Wed, Jul 22, 1998 at 12:31:33AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Enrique Zanardi <ezanardi@ull.es> 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.
Read a little further in the same message. GPL doesn't guarantee good
code.
> > Why would we want to install enlighment in /opt?
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
That's one of the stupid things that may happen.
> [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.
But the final release may have to be installed in /opt. I'm not saying
that it _will_ happen. I'm just saying that it _may_ happen. If that
happens we will have to fix it for Debian. That's just a hypothetical
example of us having to work harder because people don't do things our
way. That's one example of why we must try to gain "market share".
More "market share" means more developers using Debian, more developers
doing things the Debian way, less work for us to build a high quality
distribution.
> > Just because it is the "industry standard", a la Microsoft Word?
>
> 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.
But it is one of those stupid "industry standards". So any wordprocessor
developer has to deal with that document format to be "compatible" with
the "industry standard". That has nothing to do with Word's license, that
has to do with "market share".
> > GPLed code doesn't guarantee good code.
>
> True.
>
> Yet GPLed apps tend to be significantly higher quality than comparable
> commercial apps.
Of course, and those that don't just fade away. But that is an orthogonal
issue.
> This is one of the big value-added features of the free software
> community.
Indeed.
> > 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).
Don't diminish the importance of "market share". That's what this thread
is all about (isn't it?). It doesn't matter how good our GPLed code is if
no one uses it, and we are forced to adopt a different solution just to
comply with the "Linux industry standard". (hint: RPM vs deb. Which is
better? Which will be the Linux standard package managemet system if a
miracle don't save us?).
> > 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.
>
> Er... right.
>
> And there's better reasons that that. [Better goals, too.]
Fine. I love to obtain that kind of minor goals as secondary effect of
achieving better goals.
--
Enrique Zanardi ezanardi@ull.es
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: