On 04/16/11 10:51 PM, Jerry Kemp wrote: > Solaris virii??? That'll be the day. Exactly is what is proposed with this closed source binary release of a one man. > If you are going to beat the guy up over his efforts, that's one thing, > but at least come up with a plausible reason. Developing open software and porting is not a battle. It is more like learning and exchanging ideas and making life of of other porters better by sharing findings.
Best reason is: Guys intentions are not clear neither look promising in the future. > Open source. Most admins don't have the skill or persistence to go > through the source code of a large project and find malicious code in > the first place. Exactly, that is why Admins should go and use only audited software that someone else (maintainer) patched, changed and who's changes are audit able from a trusted party and visible by others. Aether some guy that is actually looking at the source code before putting it out or a company that have employed people for doing that (Oracle) who you maybe could potentially trust, while source changes are also released. > Chrome has been out for some time, and this has been the first > real/successful effort that I have seen to get Chrome on our "chosen > platform" to date. Unfortunately, this binary build/blob is clearly made from guy who's perusing small temporary personal gain and turning inside out the level of trustfulness that open source tools and applications give to it's users. There is nothing wrong making money. But there IS something terribly wrong smelling around here, with closing source. If he made he's build for sale, while also contributing sources (in the same way he actually got real source code from REAL Chromium), I would personally advocate to pay the guy for it's porting and packaging effort, providing a binary release. That way he wold be CREDIBLE source, someone you can trust. This way, You can not possibly trust this guy's intentions, because it's binary is Closed, unaudited and therefore, too risky It is making Closed source out of Open in the clear light. That binary is NOT a Chromium. Chromium is open source. It is sort of binary that looks and smell like it, but you actually never know what is under hood, until you have ABILITY to test it by taking full audited open source and with possibility to build it yourself, without closed undefined UFO parts that came from no one knows where. > I am a Firefox user, but I am envious of the skills required to get the > port as far along as it is. It would be great to learn, but obviously that kind of people can only teach bad and unsustainable market behavior. > To James Choi and Ruben. Thank you for your porting efforts. It is > appreciated. I guess level of uncertainty that this particular closed source build of open software and possible problems with it induces in short and long term, disqualify it from ever using it. We will yet to see source code changes in the clear light and binary build that can be built by anyone else. Using binary source from This guy is at least very bad idea. If I have to use binary build, I would definitely not use this guy's binary. Never. I would rather wait for source changes to "land" (if ever) and to see independent and open build Everyone can use. And providing that sort of "open" changes this Bag of tricks could provide , does not always intentionally DEPEND on it's new closed addons!.. And since he will continue to add closed things to it's build without releasing them, with this kind of behavior he will always REMAIN UNTRUSTED source. If you value your life/business/job/Administration practice and have stepped away from "Everything closed, lets use untrusted sources programs from internet, and 'Antivirus'": Microsoft way of doing things, then you will say: Not in here, not now. Not on my Solaris. (Or OpenIndiana/Illumos, whatever you get to have installed) _______________________________________________ desktop-discuss mailing list desktop-discuss@opensolaris.org
