3 ms·

Care to elaborate why? I'm not affiliated with the project in any way. But if it works well and the documentation/support are there, why is it as completely unu

Care to elaborate why? I'm not affiliated with the project in any way. But if it works well and the documentation/support are there, why is it as completely unusable as you seem to claim? Your comment sounds like you're just fighting the holy FOSS war.

ddevault 8y ago
Because I see every piece of software like this as something I will inevitably have to dig deep into the internals of to fix bugs and send patches for if I were to adopt it. So should you.
- mherrmann 8y ago
  By being so religious about the open source aspect only, you are blind to the many potential other benefits a project may have. But to each their own.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    I don't think that's true. I've long worked with software both proprietary and not, and I find myself digging deep all the time. I shouldn't have to reverse engineer my dependencies to find out why they're broken. When I do figure it out, I should be able to send a patch so everyone benefits. Without these basic things in place, I simply cannot get work done. The other advantages are not really important. If an open source offering is lacking something, I can just add it myself. If the proprietary version is lacking something, I cannot.
    - mherrmann 8y ago
      And what if what you're doing is just a quick, one month project? Is it likely you must absolutely dig into the sources then? I would say no. The fact is, your original comment completely fails to address or take into account the context of the individual project. You think you're being reasonable, and of course there are great advantages to open source. I too would prefer this library to be. But the dogmatism and fanaticism is not just offensive to the author who claims elsewhere in the thread that he spent 4 years on this, it's also irrational and leads to suboptimal results.
      - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        >And what if what you're doing is just a quick, one month project? Is it likely you must absolutely dig into the sources then? I would say no. You would be surprised. I can't even count on one hand the number of times I've send a patch upstream within the first 2 hours of using a new dependency. I don't really care how long he spent on it. It was a waste of 4 years if it's just going to be proprietary.
        mherrmann 8y ago
        > It was a waste of 4 years if it's just going to be proprietary. Dogmatism all over again.
        asddgsgsaxg 8y ago
        Sir_Cmpwn, i too find myself sending drive-by patches after trying out a new package. Don't bother with this hateful guy, you rock!
  - pknopf 8y ago
    Wanting to debug/maintain libraries you depend on isn't what I would call "religious". > you are blind to the many potential other benefits a project may have What makes you think we aren't paying attention?
    - mherrmann 8y ago
      Because the comment > This is proprietary, so it's a non-starter. did not go into _any_ of the other details or aspects of the project.
pknopf 8y ago
For me, I work on embedded systems, and every binary that goes on my devices have to be compiled with very specific toolchains/libs.

ddevault 8y ago

Because I see every piece of software like this as something I will inevitably have to dig deep into the internals of to fix bugs and send patches for if I were to adopt it. So should you.

mherrmann 8y ago
By being so religious about the open source aspect only, you are blind to the many potential other benefits a project may have. But to each their own.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  I don't think that's true. I've long worked with software both proprietary and not, and I find myself digging deep all the time. I shouldn't have to reverse engineer my dependencies to find out why they're broken. When I do figure it out, I should be able to send a patch so everyone benefits. Without these basic things in place, I simply cannot get work done. The other advantages are not really important. If an open source offering is lacking something, I can just add it myself. If the proprietary version is lacking something, I cannot.
  - mherrmann 8y ago
    And what if what you're doing is just a quick, one month project? Is it likely you must absolutely dig into the sources then? I would say no. The fact is, your original comment completely fails to address or take into account the context of the individual project. You think you're being reasonable, and of course there are great advantages to open source. I too would prefer this library to be. But the dogmatism and fanaticism is not just offensive to the author who claims elsewhere in the thread that he spent 4 years on this, it's also irrational and leads to suboptimal results.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      >And what if what you're doing is just a quick, one month project? Is it likely you must absolutely dig into the sources then? I would say no. You would be surprised. I can't even count on one hand the number of times I've send a patch upstream within the first 2 hours of using a new dependency. I don't really care how long he spent on it. It was a waste of 4 years if it's just going to be proprietary.
      - mherrmann 8y ago
        > It was a waste of 4 years if it's just going to be proprietary. Dogmatism all over again.
      - asddgsgsaxg 8y ago
        Sir_Cmpwn, i too find myself sending drive-by patches after trying out a new package. Don't bother with this hateful guy, you rock!
- pknopf 8y ago
  Wanting to debug/maintain libraries you depend on isn't what I would call "religious". > you are blind to the many potential other benefits a project may have What makes you think we aren't paying attention?
  - mherrmann 8y ago
    Because the comment > This is proprietary, so it's a non-starter. did not go into _any_ of the other details or aspects of the project.

pknopf 8y ago

For me, I work on embedded systems, and every binary that goes on my devices have to be compiled with very specific toolchains/libs.