| |||||||||||||
Wheeler: Insecure open source software libraries?Wheeler: Insecure open source software libraries?Posted Apr 10, 2012 14:44 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)In reply to: Wheeler: Insecure open source software libraries? by khim Parent article: Wheeler: Insecure open source software libraries?
The last bit (that distribution feel they have the right to decide for me if users deserve to see my app or not) is especially insulting - this is Apple-worthy level of arrogance. That would depend not only on your app but also on the distribution. Debian, for example, seems to be happy to take anything that is (a) distributable by Debian and (b) supported by somebody who will see to packaging the software for Debian. So if you're a distribution and you don't package an app you're »arrogant«. If you do package as much as you can package, you get flak for overwhelming your users with choices. In any case you get booed for not offering 500.000 packages like the iOS app store does (even if 499.000 of those »apps« are either glorified bookmarks, trying to sell you something, or are otherwise uninteresting or useless). Seems there is no pleasing everybody all the time.
(Log in to post comments)
Wheeler: Insecure open source software libraries? Posted Apr 10, 2012 20:51 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That would depend not only on your app but also on the distribution. Debian, for example, seems to be happy to take anything that is (a) distributable by Debian. Yup. That's what I'm talking about. Apple is cursed for it's huge 30% cut while Debian demands price point of zero (and source code to boot). Seems there is no pleasing everybody all the time. It's impossible in principle. The problem is not that Debian manages to piss of somebody. The problem is that Debian pisses of 99% of users and 90% of developers (perhaps even more: there are more developers among Linux users but I'm not sure the difference is 10x).
Wheeler: Insecure open source software libraries? Posted Apr 10, 2012 23:05 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Apple is cursed for it's huge 30% cut … Where's the problem? As a book author I would be enthusiastic if my publisher would let me keep 70% of the proceeds of selling my books. … while Debian demands price point of zero (and source code to boot). The whole point of Debian is providing a free (as in freedom) OS. While free (as in freedom) software does not need to be free as in beer, the Debian repositories do not have a coin slot, and that is generally considered a Good Thing™. On the other hand, a piece of software does not actually need to be inside the Debian repository to be usable on a Debian-based system. There is no reason whatsoever why somebody could not use their own repository to make their commercially-licensed software available for Debian, with dependencies on the Debian repository if required. With a steep price tag and no source code. The problem is that Debian pisses of 99% of users … This is probably not true. My company provides Linux instruction, among other things, and we get a constant stream of requests from people who run, or are interested in running, Debian-based installations. In fact, the proportion of Debian work we do is steadily rising while the proportion of SLES work (which used to be our bread-and-butter business) is going down. We certainly do more work based on Debian these days than we do based on RHEL or even CentOS.
Wheeler: Insecure open source software libraries? Posted Apr 10, 2012 23:16 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the Ubuntu PPA approach works very nicely for adding an extra repository for some special application, and the really nice thing is that once it's setup, updates for this application work just like updates for all the other software on the system.
|
|||||||||||||