🚀 go-pugleaf

In <41ve4u$p3s@reznor.larc.nasa.gov>, kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>In article <40vt02$8c9@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> rsjohnso@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu (Richard Scot Johnson) writes:
>
>>All these posts about users needing to know source code of their OS
>>and having the sophistication of a Unix administrator is ridiculous.
>>It's like a comment made by a friend of mine (a linux fanatic) who
>>claimed that all artist should know the chemical composition and
>>properties of the paint they were using.  Otherwise they couldn't be
>>considered "competent enough" to use their tools.
>
>The artist shouldn't _need_ to know the composition of the paint, and
>you shouldn't _need_ to know what's inside your OS either.  But sooner
>or later, this being the real world, something will go wrong.  If
>something goes wrong with the paint, you can call up the manufacturer
>and ask for a material safety data sheet which will tell you what the
>contents are.  Likewise, you should be able to call up the manufacturer
>of the OS, and get the source.
>
>Sure, you might not personally be able to read the source, but there
>are people out there who can, and those guys directly benefit you by
>fixing problems.  If you don't care about getting bugs fixed or features
>added, then why bother with the whole thing at all?
>--scott
>--

so by this logic, if the chip in my car goes out, I should get the
source from Ford and burn a new one myself ?
Lets get real....you're not ALWAYS going to have access to source.
And for the most part, thats a GOOD THING.  Think about
the support headachs with a million 'patched' versions of
a product as popular as windows.





>"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."