Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ryan Gordon Is Fed Up, FatELF Is Likely Dead

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    Just because the vast majority of consumer level commercial software is crap-ware doesn't mean that some of it isn't worth using.
    True, but I find that the free equivalent is generally 'good enough', and far less annoying, particularly now that pretty much every piece of Windows software wants 'activation' to function. For example, there's a program I use on Windows which I've paid about $500 for over the years in initial purchase price and upgrades, and now it has 'activation' it randomly decides it's 'deactivated' every few months meaning I have to either call California and spend fifteen minutes on the phone or send an email and wait a day for them to fix it; the open source equivalent isn't as good, but it supports most of the features, has more features that the commercial version doesn't have, and gets better all the time.

    The primary exceptions are games and video editing/compositing, which are the only reasons why I keep Windows around (and the compositing application is actually available for Linux). Similarly, I suspect that the few people who really need some fancy Office feature are the main thing keeping more companies from dumping Windows for Linux, and it will be a cold day in hell before Microsoft port Office to Linux, precisely because they know it's keeping people tied to their operating system.

    Anyway, this is getting off topic here.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by stevenaaus View Post
      You're right, Auto-config is for source only (really). But, still, it's how linux software is distributed.
      I was just being cynical... binary only software is a nightmare.
      Wait a moment there - autoconf configures a makefile to compile to a binary and then to INSTALL that binary. I see a light of possibility here to modify it to only install the provided binary. That could be actually useful for all the binary-blob coders.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by yotambien View Post
        I can't prove anything. If it works for you, fine. I know it doesn't work for me. [...snip...] The conclusion was that the minimal cost savings (institutions like this can obtain Office at quite a reduced price, especially given the big numbers of licenses they adquire)
        See this is the problem. Scientific institutions should not get themselves locked in like that. Then they have to get the new m$ version, when the old one runs out-of support, then new windows, because m$ decides they need more money, otherwise they wont get security updates. I myself would hate to write something important and save it in a format that no one REALLY knows how to read except for one company. I know (La)TEX is very popular amongst scientific publications. It also gives the distinctive, professional look to the document.
        And whats with this using a spreadsheet for scientific calculations and data analysis? Do they REALLY do that? Thats sick!


        Originally posted by yotambien View Post
        didn't offset the problems arisen during the tests. I clearly remember them saying that OO Writer, despite being perceived as the most mature application of the suite, still had many glitches that wouldn't justify its adoption.
        Thank you for a lengthy answer. Unfortunately I miss the concreteness I was looking for. Saying 'it just doesnt work' is not constructive and tend to leave a mark on the program indefinitely. The actual faults on the other hand should be reported so they can be repaired. Maybe much of them are already fixed (we might never know...).

        Ms Office compatibility will never be 100% for the simple reason the format is not publicly documented. Thats why I dont think we should take that in the account when comparing the two.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by misiu_mp
          See this is the problem. Scientific institutions should not get themselves locked in like that. Then they have to get the new m$ version, when the old one runs out-of support, then new windows, because m$ decides they need more money, otherwise they wont get security updates. I myself would hate to write something important and save it in a format that no one REALLY knows how to read except for one company. I know (La)TEX is very popular amongst scientific publications. It also gives the distinctive, professional look to the document.
          I agree about the locked-in comment, the problems of the format, the insanity of using a word processors for certain tasks and all that, seriously. But at some point you have to get practical and make a decision based on something more tangible than the hypothetical problems you mentioned. Also remember that companies and Universities have deeper pockets than single users...Latex is excellent, but it's not a replacement for a word processor, each tool for its job.

          Originally posted by misiu_mp
          And whats with this using a spreadsheet for scientific calculations and data analysis? Do they REALLY do that? Thats sick!
          Yes and no. In the example I mentioned you have to consider all the administrative personnel that use office applications. For the hard core stuff they have other software. Having said this, the amount of people who (over)use spreadsheets to do data analysis is scary. Or who use PowerPoint for everything; the last trend seems to be embedding pictures in PowerPoint presentations for no obvious reason other than having them all together, forcing you to have some means of opening those files properly.

          At any rate, it would be nice that OO got to the point where it was a no-brainer to choose it instead of MS Office for every situation. As it is now I think it works well for the home user or when interoperability it's not critical, and that's impressive given what this guy was saying about the stagnation of its development less than a year ago...

          Comment


          • auto config

            Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
            Wait a moment there - autoconf configures a makefile to compile to a binary and then to INSTALL that binary. I see a light of possibility here to modify it to only install the provided binary. That could be actually useful for all the binary-blob coders.
            Yes, autoconf is flexible enough to do this. But as far a being useful to third party sotware,
            the problem is that not everyone has a complete development environment installed.
            Personally, i think autoconf might be the best solution, but i'm not too cluey about it really.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by stevenaaus View Post
              Yes, autoconf is flexible enough to do this. But as far a being useful to third party sotware,
              the problem is that not everyone has a complete development environment installed.
              Personally, i think autoconf might be the best solution, but i'm not too cluey about it really.
              Technically, any buildsystem can do it. I have done it with CMake even! It was weird doing it, but it does work. The flaw with relying on a build system is that it means you have to DEPEND on something to make it work.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by King InuYasha View Post
                Technically, any buildsystem can do it. I have done it with CMake even! It was weird doing it, but it does work. The flaw with relying on a build system is that it means you have to DEPEND on something to make it work.
                Autoconf is somewhat different that many other build-systems (e.g. cmake), as it does _not_ require autoconf itself to be installed by the builder, merely make/sh/etc. Autoconf itself is only required for people doing development.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by snogglethorpe View Post
                  Autoconf is somewhat different that many other build-systems (e.g. cmake), as it does _not_ require autoconf itself to be installed by the builder, merely make/sh/etc. Autoconf itself is only required for people doing development.
                  I didn't say what specifically you had to depend on. In the case of autoconf, you depend on a Bourne-compatible Unix shell. This can be a huge problem when working in oddball configurations. Although, nowadays bash is available with every distribution, so it isn't as much of an issue. It is still a dependency.

                  Comment


                  • Sorry for the late entry (and i did not read all 11, very verbose pages)
                    Just wanted to add:
                    Other buildsystems can also generate standlone scripts.

                    misiu_mp:
                    Autoconf can't do anything usefull after compilation. In fact, i'd say it can't do much usefull stuff before compilation either. It's crap if you ask me, and written in a language which noone actually knows anymore. It absolutely can't help with anything here.

                    Installing binary blobs are very easy. Most binary software i've used had a small script and that was it. In fact, software developers should just take 1 day to create a *.deb and *.rpm and there, support for most platforms.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by King InuYasha View Post
                      I didn't say what specifically you had to depend on. In the case of autoconf, you depend on a Bourne-compatible Unix shell. This can be a huge problem when working in oddball configurations. Although, nowadays bash is available with every distribution, so it isn't as much of an issue. It is still a dependency.
                      It's not a serious one -- autoconf-generated shell code goes to huge lengths to be compatible with just about any existing /bin/sh.

                      As you say, nowadays buggy/weird shells are not as much a problem, but there were lots of weird unix systems when autoconf was first created, and thus the autoconf authors made a lot of effort to avoid or work around such problems.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X