Subject: Re: source access vs dynamism From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1999/08/25 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3144569678548813@naggum.no> * Erik Naggum | Linux is a success because it is well _managed_, not because it is Open | Source. * Philip Lijnzaad | yes, but at the same time I cannot conceive of a well managed Linux that | does not give source access. sigh. neither can I. _please_ note that my argument is not against source access, but against giving it to anyone, without restrictions or need or any concept of investment in it. I have argued for source access so much that I really did believe it would be very hard to for anyone to confuse the issues, but let me phrase it differently in the hopes that I can transcend the apparently strong desire to see this as an access vs no access issue: I want source access to be granted by the author/owner to those deemed worthy as part of building a community of people who agree to co-invest and share knowledge. I don't want source access to be a "right" to be demanded of authors/owners regardless of personal values or intentions. on a higher level, I want to solve better the problem that source access is solving badly: helping people get software that works the way they, individually, want it to work. | that might seem so superficially, but big part of the motivation for open | source developers is to do something well, and be known for it (somehwere | I read the strange term 'egoboo' for this). The packages/projects that | really last fall in this category. my argument is that you get more egoboost (I'm sure that's the word you saw) out of being part of a community with privileges than you get out of having access to source code. with source access to any stray comer, it is actually _harder_ to build the community, and the time it takes to deal with the eager incompetents is alarming. | No: first of all, most packages need recompiling of modified source code | before the package can be said to have adapted. This is simply not | convenient, for neither power user nor layman, and there is clearly an | incentive to make software adaptable in an easier way. Secondly, | adaptability necessarily involves generality and therefore complexity. | Using this to its full extent will likely remain the domain of the power | user, and this category of users overlaps with those who'd be inclined to | change source code anyway. I think you miss my point, again: at issue is using _dynamic_ languages. I'm arguing that source access is a necessity in the static language camp and that by giving people access to source in static languages, you deny them the opportunity to do what they really want, which is to add or use dynamic properties of the system as delivered. if you reply, _please_ keep in mind that I'm not opposed to source access, nor do I think that source access is not necessary for a number of useful things. I'm opposed to giving people access to the source as a means of "solving" their real problem: insufficiently dynamic software to deal with the complexity of real-world applications and people. most people who code leisurely fail to appreciate the inherent complexity of every problem that actually deals with real people, and I'm NOT talking about the user interface, and I want to remove the source access from people who are likely to be hurting themselves and the whole profession by doing stuff that they should rather communicate in a human language to a human developer. #:Erik -- save the children: just say NO to sex with pro-lifers