If you cannot install a package using apt-get then you should forget about it. If the author doesn’t provide it so it can be installed with apt-get, then it’s not yet ready for serious consideration, so you shouldn’t waste your time on it if you have to use another package manager.
Full story »
http://daveshields.wordpress.com –
- Login to post comments
aboutblank
17 years 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago
This kind of attitude is common
This kind of attitude is common with those that see free software as another kind of 'liberal proprietary software'. Computer programs are not magic. Computer programs will do only what it was programmed to do. If a computer program is not completely adequate for one's requirements, the program should be modified so that it becomes adequate. In this case, the software installation routines could use some improvement. In this case, it is the user who should commission an investment into improving the installation routines to meet their requirement of 'being apt-getable'.
daveshields
17 years 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago
You miss the point. As a user
You miss the point.
As a user of free and open-source software my sole obligation is to honor the terms and conditions of the license under which I receive the software.
I have no obligation to "comission an investment into improving the installation routines." That is the developer's responsibility, not mine.
thanks, dave
http://daveshields.wordpress.com
aboutblank
17 years 2 weeks 23 hours 37 min ago
Yes, the only legal obligation
Yes, the only legal obligation of the user is defined within the license but that still doesn't move the burden of investment from the user. Why? **Computer programs designed for general consumption WILL always be somewhat INADEQUATE to somebody**. If this is the case for the user, the user are the ones that are required to change it as they are the ones that the sets the requirements.
Computer programs will not change itself. If the user is unable to understand computer logic, they should hire the services of a programmer. The programmer fixes up the program, the user pays the programmer then the user has paid for the perfect program as it theoretically fulfills the user's every requirement.
Now you can argue that the purpose of open source is to develop the best software that can be done through the best development method. This may be true for open source but the free software rhetoric doesn't care about "the best development method". It only cares about the user's right to control their own computer (source code and documentation is required for this) and the user's right to help others by allowing them the liberty share their software with anyone.