Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Nov 2008 21:22 UTC
Permalink for comment 338766
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-11-24
The last few threads of comments to this story are amazing in that they point out the contradictory nature of FOSS advocacy.
The FOSS advocates don't want stuff like stable ABIs and APIs, prefer their software to be flexible and source-oriented, and gently admonish the beggaring would-be FOSS users to "STFU or GTFO".
OK, so should the same attitude be returned to beggaring FOSS users who clamor for, say, Linux/X11 ports or open-sourcing of proprietary vendors' software applications (and openly damn the vendors if they don't, alot like the reaction of Mac users in similar straits)? Should we actually encourage the proprietary vendors to not port (or open-source, or even open-spec) their applications to Linux/X11 just to spite the users of Linux/X11 systems and let them stick with their flexibility?
I think such a request would do the Linux/X11 users a favor.
Edited 2008-11-30 20:16 UTC