>Consider this statement from a closed-source advocate: "Even one of the
>most popular open source projects around, Linux, can't get about the
>business of developing their system without the assistance of
>commecially-developed, closed-source software. What does that tell you
>about the viability of open source software when you really need to get
>the job done?"
Derisive laughter is the worthy only response to that sort of
nonsense. If it was Richard Stallman who was using object-code-only
software, then it would be a good political point, but a lot of
people using Linux are much more pragmatic than that. Yeah, Linus
uses PowerPoint too, but Linux still has 10 million seats despite
his use of some object-code-only software.
>To more directly answer your question: if you're not really interested in
>whether the open source movement moves forward, then there's certainly
>nothing wrong with using closed development tools. But when there -are-
>open alternatives (CVS and PRCS/XDelta, for example, with suppliments such
>as Jitterbug, Bonsai, and Tinderbox), "what is wrong with using them?" :-)
If someone doesn't want to use a given tool, don't force them to use
it out of any feeling of philosophical purity.
____
david parsons \bi/ And, as Larry sez, if you don't like his license
\/ you _can_ write your own.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/