David Lyon schreef:
So what? Don't you think it is misleading to call something as bug
laden as Lazarus 1.0?
You need to put it into context. It is open-source, and has been a hobby
for many.
Writing compilers and code-tools is a tough business.
What has been done so far is remarkable....
Let's just put a shiny coat of paint on the thing and present it in it's
best light.....
we don't have to claim it as perfection... people are free to do their
evaluations as they see fit and come to their own conclusions....
Right. Let them evaluate Lazarus and draw its conclusions. Let it their evaluations
be base on actual use and not just on the version number.
You only can get away with that, if you are a commercial entity. Open
source has higher standards.
Higher ideals....
but in reality, commercial organisations must contribute funds/manpower
for open-source projects to be able to iron out their bugs.
hope you know that IBM invested about a billion dollars into Linux,
writing tests, to get it to be useable in a commercial sense. Otherwise,
it would have just stayed a hobbiest-hack.
That may be true. Did IBM need to be tricked into supporting it? Did Linus create a
IBM relaese? Is that why we got Linux 2.0 all over sudden? Did the name change?
Same is true for Lazarus.... we really need to find more companies that
can fund (unit) tests or contractor-time to sort out our issues.
To do that we need to present a slightly rosy picture ......
This sounds like misleading.
Vincent
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
