pbsdp

9 ms·

61.
by pbsdp 13y ago
If users don't want to run binaries for which source isn't available, they are under no obligation to do so, and can simg choose to use binaries for which source is provided; no so-called ethical "right" to source code a
62.
by pbsdp 13y ago
You don't need the GPL for that; just provide the source code for your software. If users actually care about having the code, they can use your binary for which code exists. If they don't care, they can use proprietary software,
63.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Users already have that right with liberally licensed open source code. If they don't want to use proprietary extensions for which they can't acquire the source, that's fine; nobody is forcing them to.
64.
by pbsdp 13y ago
How can you violate rights of end users? Your open source code hasn't disappeared. End users can still use it, copy it; and share it. If end users don't want to use proprietary extensions to open source code, they don't have
65.
by pbsdp 13y ago
The license grants rights and imposes limitations. One of those limitations prevents users from mixing code freely. Users already had the right to not use proprietary products; what the GPL has actually done is to take away their right
66.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Those rights are already secured in pepetuity. Your code, once released as opensource, is always opensource. If users don't want to use code that contains proprietary modifications to your code, nobody is forcing them to -- your openso
67.
by pbsdp 13y ago
If those users don't want to use code that isn't released liberally, they don't have to. So what are you actually securing for them? It's not freedom, they already have the freedom to not use proprietary software.
68.
by pbsdp 13y ago
I'm not really sure what you could possibly expect after MS spent most of the natural lifetime of this industries senior developers' behaving badly.
69.
by pbsdp 13y ago
The GPL does offer a deal, but its dishonest to call it 'freedom'.
70.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Users of proprietary software have the choice and can decline, too. Since users dont need it to protect their freedom, why is the GPL necessary if not to restrict freedom?
71.
by pbsdp 13y ago
I'm a user, and I want to use your library in my product. The GPL limits my freedom.
72.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> According to many, including the FSF, GNU, Stallman and myself, increasing access to the source code for everyone is increasing freedom. Once released freely, the source code never stops being free, so I don't really know what t
73.
by pbsdp 13y ago
The peon actively chose to work there and participate in Microsoft's attempts to dismantle any competition in any field they enter through highly questionable tactics.
74.
by pbsdp 13y ago
VirtualBox, IDA Pro, Google Earth (in fact, everything from Google that uses Qt), EAGLE (PCB software), OpenSCAD, QGIS ... I've literally never been fooled by a Qt app -- a Mac user can spot that hot mess from a mile away. It's
75.
by pbsdp 13y ago
I have. It used to use X11, I saw even more complaints then. There aren't any competitors, however, so people use Mathematica. I use high-end expensive that are Qt-only too, but I would gladly switch if there were other options, beca
76.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Nobody on OS X wants a Qt app. If you have any solid competition in the market from a company willing to produce a native app, you'll lose to them. No wonder you're having issues on OS X.
77.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> All with the same binary installers. So you integrate with the user's desktop environment, using standard local widgets, theming, integration with UX guidelines, local library dependencies, etc? Or are you shipping a Qt app with
78.
by pbsdp 13y ago
The kernel. Everything else from libc on up was rewritten, and under Google's control. The Play store is hardly in AOSP, much less their new IntelliJ-based development stack.
79.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Your management hasn't really changed. I grew up with MS in the 80s and 90s -- I'm not quick to forgive a monopoly that set the whole industry back by 10 years.
80.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Earnestly and dedicatedly inducing people to break their contractual obligations, fall afoul of local hotel regulations, and make life suck a little more for their neighbors. They're not nice people.
81.
by pbsdp 13y ago
Can you imagine writing desktop software for Linux? Inconsistent APIs, API breakage, ABI breakage, sizable variances between distributions, multiple desktops UI implementations, and you may as well just forget about mobile. I'm not j
82.
by pbsdp 13y ago
I will also note that I'm not a 'webdev', but I am a destkop and server-side software developer. I came to OS X by way of IRIX/Solaris Desktops -> Linux/FreeBSD Desktops -> Mac OS X 10.0. My preference isn&#x2
83.
by pbsdp 13y ago
I would be convinced if Canonical: - Dropped the entire Linux desktop software stack. - Wrote a well-integrated top-down designed set of frameworks that provided a consistent API for desktop software, with binary-level ABI compatibility acr
84.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> And what's the point of comparing the performance of an Apple only, commercial program, to a free and open source multi-platform program . If I have a Mac and need to virtualize things, 'free and open source' doesn&#x27
85.
by pbsdp 13y ago
> iCloud+Core Data on the other hand allows custom conflict resolution on the clients. The new APIs in iOS 7 do, but then you lose all the value of "transparent distributed store" and it winds up being a pretty sizable hassle
86.
by pbsdp 13y ago
First of all, why would I want to run X applications? That said, let's say I do -- so I download and double-click the MacPorts installer, and then run 'port install' to install an X11 app from a binary package. Not that I&#x2
87.
by pbsdp 13y ago
It's not possible to seamlessly/transparently/asynchronously synchronize data; conflict resolution must be done. If this was possible, iCloud+CoreData would have worked, and Oracle/PostgreSQL/etc would be shipping t
88.
by pbsdp 13y ago
That's actually how I feel about Linux; it's a social monoculture and nobody seems to care a whit about anyone that isn't an ubernerd that wants to fiddle endlessly with a poorly designed/integrated OS.
89.
by pbsdp 13y ago
The Mac doesn't need package management, I don't know why you're insistent on it. The App Store isn't package management, it's just one way to download sandboxed apps.
90.
by pbsdp 13y ago
This is the ridiculous opposite of "just works".

More ›