Re: Why no Opera?
Stanislav Maslovski <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 10:49:21AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> true. If somebody could convince the opera guys to open their source -
>> that would be a great thing. Opera is a very well working browser and it
>> is a shame, that it is not under an open source license.
> [flame on]
> I do not understand why that is "a shame". I think that the real shame is
> too many broken or never finished programs under open source licenses.
> [flame off]
Why? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It sounds equivalent to
saying that it's a shame that so many badly written and incoherent essays
have been published. But of course, for essays, that's something we
embrace, since exchange of information is valuable and even though
(following Sturgeon's Law) 95% of everything is crap, you have to have the
95% to get the 5% that's good.
It seems to me that the same argument applies to software. Of course 95%
of free software is crap; that's true of 95% of *everything*. Reducing
the amount of free software doesn't only reduce the crap.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>