To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You're right, I said Ubuntu first and you responded to it. I chose the name randomly, as I don't use Ubuntu myself..
(Arguing about thinks like mp3 is a completely different beast, as this is not about software, but about software patents)
The problem I see in this discussion that you don't point out flaws in "open source", but in Ubuntu. Sorry.
What I wanted to express is, that the open source ecosystem in itself works and doesn't have the flaws you see in it. Binary compatibility is no issue for open source software in general. You can always compile against your current system and if you don't want to do it yourself there are distributors who do it. That's not applicable to every piece of software, as you have pointed out already.
As soon as you try to use proprietary software on a open source system, the problems start to arise. Like binary compatibility. On the other side, if you want to use popular open source software on a proprietary platform, it comes with a lot of dependancys. Both ways are suboptimal.
This discussion is quite senseless as I guess we talk about other point of views (I don't mean opinions here) or topics here. And right, it went into a circle.
Edited 2007-08-07 17:19






Member since:
2005-08-22
You brought up Ubuntu, claiming it didn't have the DLL installation issues Windows does. I'm just responding to your claims.
Arguing about whether or not your have to use Automatix is silly, as the vast majority of Ubuntu users use it.
You can't seriously claim that mp3 playback is a fringe thing only some users need. It's gotten to the point where even some servers need mp3 playback support (I've used it with Asterisk PBX boxes to get music on hold).
You've been arguing in circles here. Any point about a flaw in open source you respond to with a specific solution to the problem. Any criticism of the solution you suggest is responded to by "but that's a specific thing, not open source."