On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 13:07:18 +0100 Louigi Verona <louigi.verona@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Of course. But I would need some evidence that this is somehow > important. One important thing in being able to read source code (as that would be linked to the GPL) is the possibility to go through actual working code and not only examples. > Keep in mind that there are hundreds of thousands of hobbyist > developers who are writing great software and not making it "free" or > even open-source. And the world doesn't end. There is one thing, as I just replied to Massimo, is that at the beginning, and for quite some time until today, a lot of professionals supported the Linux project with code. Being professionals, they injected a way of doing things that is far from the hobbyist (if you compare for instance with many (not all) Windows freeware). This has tainted the movement since the early days. This dedication to make something good. Might not be great, but well done. > And notice, in regards to its sustainability, Microsoft itself makes > sure programs are backwards and forwards compatible for as long as > possible. Hmmmm.... IBM yes, Microsoft, not so. So many companies stick to older MS software because of the problems linked to upgrading, for instance. > In a way, the Linux ecosystem, by being so unstable and prone to > constant changes > that are compatibility-careless has created the problem it is not > claiming to be in such a good position to solve. An upgrade can contain instabilities, when all the many different parts are considered, as well as their interactions. Not to mention dependencies put into packaging systems. This is why the notion that was mentioned here, in the context of proprietary vs. Open Source, that someone reading a forum can decide to implement a function in a software, or to fix a bug, is largely fantasy. It happens, but not so much. Not an argument to bring forth when comparing to companies. Because if people start to implement stuff and fix bugs without forking their own projects, it will lead to SW maintenance hell and will prevent eventually further developments. > One thing he says is that "free" software allows people to learn and > to share. > Perhaps. But proprietary software allows to do that as well. There are > other ways > to learn, but taking someone else's program and studying the code. > In fact, I would argue it is better to go through a tutorial or read > a book then try > to study someone else's code. Looking through code not written by > yourself is very ineffective. The optimized way is a combination of both. Only source code can be tenuous and actually taking more time, depending on the complexity of the subject. After the notions are learned, having working, from the field, software code to go through can be beneficial. In a sense this has to do with not having to reinvent the wheel. The quality of the code also matters and this brings back the professional inspiration that supported (supports) Linux for quite some time. Still, this is no argument for the musician to choose Linux. There must be some good reasons... Cheers. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
