"Jamin W. Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > > >Using lots of simple tools (versus bloatware) is not always the best, most > >stable, or easiest way. > > > There have been a few people that have claimed this. However, I've yet > to see any sound examples where the simple tools combined together for a > task were not better at it than some (as you put it) "bloatware" > package. I'm sure it goes without saying, but just to make 100% we are > comparing "best-of-breed" applications here right?
<standard-counter-example for="unix-way-argument"> Emacs. </standard-counter-example> > What is so bad about GPL'ing something? Personally, if I decide to give > away my code (which I have), I like knowing that any enhancements to it > are public domain. Different ideologies. BSD style is "nicer" in that it says "here it is, enjoy". In a perfect world, it's be the ideal license. GPL poses restrictions on the user. Best argument I've heard so far for BSD style license: since MS used so much BSD licensed code, they have a hard time condemming Open Source per se, and instead can only focus on GPL and eventually look ridicolous. But more people have had heated arguments about this - try google to get an idea of the arguments for either side. -Jan
