Bill, On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:22:09 -0800, William Chops Westfield wrote: > On Saturday, Jan 24, 2004, at 18:13 US/Pacific, D. Jay Newman wrote: > > > It seems that fixes come more quickly to > > Linux (open-source) than to Windows (closed-source). > > > > Also, the open-source community admits to and fixes problems more > > rapidly than most close-source sources. > > > > > Except when they refuse to admit that they have a bug. I understand > that there is some VERY questionable logic in the current Linux ARP > code, and the relevant developer simply refuses to admit that it > should be changed. Then why doesn't someone else fix it? As I understand the situation, anyone is free to create their own versions and release them to the public. The incorporation of the new or old version is then the choice of the person building Linux. This sort of thing has happened in the OS/2 world, which is my favourite Operating System, where IBM's drivers for serial ports and disk drives were thought to be less than optimal and new ones were written by Ray Gwinn and Daniela Engert, respectively. These are now used by most people in preference to those from IBM. And this is in the arena of closed, copyright protected code (although Dani's stuff is free to use). > Since there is effectively no way to apply market > pressure to free software, it might never get changed. I don't see that as a logical conclusion - if the original "buggy" stuff was free, why can't new "clean" stuff be written and free too? > Assorted > vendors are cringing about how much THEY are likely to have to spend > to 'support' this quirk that won't go away... So why don't they spend the money on fixing it? > The things going on (or not going on) with the Jal compiler since > it was made open source are mildly amusing as well. I know of JAL but I must admit I haven't heard anything about these "things going on" - could you point me to this, please? > And there are the lovely version to version incompatibilities in > famous packages like emacs. Sometimes solved by fragmentation into > several separate "products." Every piece of software has backward-compatibility issues (or forks) - look at Windows. When Windows 95 and NT were released, it was said that the next version of Windows would pull them together into one homogeneous package, but they then released 98, 98 SE, ME, various numbered NTs and 2000 before finally producing XP, over about seven years. And even then XP has "Home" and "Professional" versions! It seems to be a fact of life that when someone has a good idea, someone else has a "better" one based on it, but the original developer won't accept that it is better, so two versions may continue to exist. It's a human nature thing, often called "not invented here"! We just have to make the best we can of the situation. > Open source is a fine thing, but it doesn't solve all problems. *Nothing* solves all problems! :-) That's why it's so annoying that lawyers have such a grip on the world - they give the impression that they want to find a solution to every problem, and charge a fortune for trying, but they don't ever promise to solve anything, and they get paid regardless of the outcome... I think Shakespeare had the right idea! :-) > It also isn't new. Universities and such were sharing source code > for all sorts of stuff long before the 8086 even existed... Indeed, the famous Greek philosophers' /raison d'etre/ was to pass on their knowledge and encourage others to further it. > It does raise some interesting Intellectual Property issues. If > code is copyrighted and/or trade secret, I am free to "clean room" > reproduce similar code (like an IBMPC BIOS, as a popular item) if > I can reasonably demonstrate that I never studied, stole, or otherwise > used the code i am 'reverse engineering.' Accused of violating GPL > by including open source (GPL'ed) code, I would likely have a very > difficult time indeed demonstrating that I had never looked at the > relevant open source code. I don't see why not: I've never looked at any source code of any operating system (open or otherwise) - why would the fact that others have looked at it prejudice my assertion that I haven't? In Britain the legal system is that nothing may prejudice a jury, and sometimes a newspaper will publish something that might do so, so the judge may ask the jury if they have read the relevant paper and excuse them if so. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. It would be up to the "other side" to prove that I had seen the relevant code. > I'm not a big fan of the GPL ("if you > include any GPL code, your code must also be GPL'ed.") We have a > legal team that has to oversee and approve > every use of open source code in our products. Somehow, I think > paying lawyers big bucks instead of paying programmers big bucks > was NOT what even RMS had in mind. I completely agree with that! If your firm has decided to use lawyers this way, that's their choice, but it isn't mandatory, and I imagine most people don't do so. Why not get them to draw up guidelines to follow which will "keep things legal" and just follow those in future? Should save money all round! Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body