Comments on: What do dependencies have to do with Free Software? http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/ All About GNU/Linux and BSD - reviews, comparisons, articles Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:35:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Kane http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-43708 Kane Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:52:41 +0000 http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-43708 @alex: full ack! Borys writes about Linux programmers: "One app depends on other to perform its tasks, just because the programmers were smart enough (lazy enough) to use someone else’s work instead of reinventing the wheel for the 100th time." They're not only "smart enough" - the GPL people are the only kind of people who ALLOWED to do that because the GPL FORCES that all code who uses GPL code has to be GPL too. This sucks. @alex: full ack!

Borys writes about Linux programmers:

“One app depends on other to perform its tasks, just because the programmers were smart enough (lazy enough) to use someone else’s work instead of reinventing the wheel for the 100th time.”

They’re not only “smart enough” - the GPL people are the only kind of people who ALLOWED to do that because the GPL FORCES that all code who uses GPL code has to be GPL too. This sucks.

]]> By: alex http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2263 alex Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:51:41 +0000 http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2263 Only one point: I think this article is not very imparcial about propietary software. It give the impresion that free software is the holy grial of computing and propietary businees not only are evil, but stupid too. And that's not true. Propietary company reuse a lot of software; in fact, exist a complety and enormous industry of reusable code, and this industry born in propietaru bussines. I know that many reader belive in Free Software as the wave of the future (and present), and I agree, but propietary software in not full of asshole like many free software zealot think Only one point: I think this article is not very imparcial about propietary software. It give the impresion that free software is the holy grial of computing and propietary businees not only are evil, but stupid too. And that’s not true. Propietary company reuse a lot of software; in fact, exist a complety and enormous industry of reusable code, and this industry born in propietaru bussines. I know that many reader belive in Free Software as the wave of the future (and present), and I agree, but propietary software in not full of asshole like many free software zealot think

]]> By: michuk http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2249 michuk Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:04:05 +0000 http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2249 That's why I said "almost" :) That’s why I said “almost” :)

]]> By: Fred http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2241 Fred Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:14:57 +0000 http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2241 "This situation is almost unknown for the Windows’ users since most Windows applications do not have such requirements" How about "DLL hell" in Windows? Or, have I missed something? Nice article otherwise. “This situation is almost unknown for the Windows’ users since most Windows applications do not have such requirements”

How about “DLL hell” in Windows? Or, have I missed something?

Nice article otherwise.

]]> By: michuk http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2214 michuk Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:29:37 +0000 http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2214 <blockquote>It’s a trade-off, but with the increase of bandwidth and size of harddisks this trade-off is becoming more and more irrelevant.</blockquote> It's not the size that matters the most. It's the security! If you have 100 instances of libjpeg code in different static packages, how do you make sure you are running a secure system when there is a major security hole discovered in the library? Do you wish to wait for the maintainers of each program that uses this library to prepare an update for you? Or perhaps it would be better to update it once and don't have to rely on the proprietary software providers?

It’s a trade-off, but with the increase of bandwidth and size of harddisks this trade-off is becoming more and more irrelevant.

It’s not the size that matters the most. It’s the security! If you have 100 instances of libjpeg code in different static packages, how do you make sure you are running a secure system when there is a major security hole discovered in the library? Do you wish to wait for the maintainers of each program that uses this library to prepare an update for you? Or perhaps it would be better to update it once and don’t have to rely on the proprietary software providers?

]]> By: dru_satori http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2213 dru_satori Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:25:47 +0000 http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2213 The issue I have here is that this whole 'free' image is not free. It's the GPL, or as I describe it, force-free. Another alternative, and the one that I use for all of my open source work is BSD, or MIT/X11 licenese in which all of these issues go away, and commercial or propietary applications can make use of the libraries. This is the definition of 'free' as the code come unencumbered by restrictive licenses that make the decisions and compromises set forth unnecessary. In my view, "Free" software as ou describe it is just a form of licenseing communism. It's more about the religion of Free, than any real desire to give freely to the community. I know I'm in the minority here, but if you really believe in "Free" software, you'll go all the way to Free, and not restrict it to the GPL and enforcing open source upon the developers that might otherwise use the codebase but can't because of legal concerns surrounding the GPL licensing scheme. The issue I have here is that this whole ‘free’ image is not free. It’s the GPL, or as I describe it, force-free. Another alternative, and the one that I use for all of my open source work is BSD, or MIT/X11 licenese in which all of these issues go away, and commercial or propietary applications can make use of the libraries. This is the definition of ‘free’ as the code come unencumbered by restrictive licenses that make the decisions and compromises set forth unnecessary.

In my view, “Free” software as ou describe it is just a form of licenseing communism. It’s more about the religion of Free, than any real desire to give freely to the community. I know I’m in the minority here, but if you really believe in “Free” software, you’ll go all the way to Free, and not restrict it to the GPL and enforcing open source upon the developers that might otherwise use the codebase but can’t because of legal concerns surrounding the GPL licensing scheme.

]]> By: Alex http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2211 Alex Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:44:37 +0000 http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2211 Static compiling doesn't mean you have tremendous amounts of unnecessary binaries, it just means bigger binaries. For tools with only a few dependancies it's a perfectly acceptable means of distribution, just look at commercial/non-free Linux applications. It's a trade-off, but with the increase of bandwidth and size of harddisks this trade-off is becoming more and more irrelevant. Static compiling doesn’t mean you have tremendous amounts of unnecessary binaries, it just means bigger binaries. For tools with only a few dependancies it’s a perfectly acceptable means of distribution, just look at commercial/non-free Linux applications. It’s a trade-off, but with the increase of bandwidth and size of harddisks this trade-off is becoming more and more irrelevant.

]]> By: michuk http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2210 michuk Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:25:58 +0000 http://polishlinux.org/gnu/foss-and-the-dependencies/#comment-2210 Well static compiling is very similar to Static packaging -- either way you get tremendous amounts of unnecessary binaries in your OS. Well static compiling is very similar to Static packaging — either way you get tremendous amounts of unnecessary binaries in your OS.

]]>