On Thursday, 10 בJune 2010 21:26:20 Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> Even if you have the source code, it does not mean you can build it.
Exactly.
Let's examine two categories mentioned in this thread:
1. "Read-only" software
2. "Only-In-House" modified software
The common name of both is -- "crapware".
Why?
1. "Read-only" software:
* The vendor prevents modification (or make it worthless):
- Either by not supplying the complete build environment
- Or by ommitting crucial components.
* Would you waste your time reading source that does not
represent anything you actually run?
* Which, BTW, means all those NDA/Escrow plans are totally wothless.
If/when you'll try to use this source...
- It won't compile,
- Or, it would contain a subset of the functionality you use,
- Or, it would be some obsolete version (deposited few years ago
when the contract was made),
- Or, it's stored on an Exabyte-tape and you cannot find such a
tape-drive,
- Or, you found a drive, but the tape is so old, that's not
readable anymore,
- Or, you've read the file, but it's ARJ compressed and nobody
can read them any longer.
To apply the common wisdom (from sysadmin domain):
"A backup is wothless, unless it was actually tested (used)"
So:
"Source code is wothless, unless you actually compile and run it"
2. How about "modified-in-house" software?
Initially, it looks different, but let me explain why it's
practically "read-only".
I'll start with an infamous history, which was told many times by
Arie Scope (yes, the former chief of MS-Israel).
Any time he wanted to attack FOSS, he repeated the same story
which goes like this (from my memory, not exact):
"...many years ago we had a mainframe computer in Tnuva and we
had the source code for the system. During the years, a lot of
people in the company modified and adapted the source to their
needs. The result was a total mess. Nobody understood the code
and nobody could maintain/upgrade it etc..."
The story makes perfect sense to anyone who maintains software.
That's the assured result of "in-house-only" source code.
Which mean it's crapware, but you get extra maintenance costs
as a bonus ;-)
Obviously, Scope didn't see (or didn't wanted his audience to see)
the crucial difference between his story and FOSS.
In FOSS the modifications (or rather the good modifications) are
propagated upstream. This result in sharing of the maintenance
costs among all the conributing parties.
That's all for tonight folks...
--
Oron Peled Voice: +972-4-8228492
o...@actcom.co.il http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron
באנו ווינדוס לגרש, בידינו פנגווין יש!
_______________________________________________
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
