in reply to Re: blaming perl for not using a build policy
in thread blaming perl for not using a build policy

The very nature of the true freeware community is that SOMEBODY's going to want something to work on at three in the morning, [...] The very nature of he commercial world, and that includes Red Hat, is that you freeze it and get it out the door. To say the commercial world should be otherwise is like saying that rocks should fly. [...] It's your responsibility to use wealth wisely, be it FOSS or payware or something in-between.

(Additional emphasis by me.)

I personally believe that you're making a big confusion between freeware, which is not free software and open source software which is a development model and needs not be freeware nor free software. You're also making confusion between commercial software and (implicitly) proprietary software, whereas the former can actually be free software, just as much as freeware can be at the same time proprietary, and often is!

I'm also all with you in supporting gratis, free and OS software, and somehow deprecating commercial, proprietary software, but yours is far too drastic a generalization: some would argue that a developer, or a software house in the second category, depending on people paying for the quality of their products, will have someone having "to work on your problem at three in the morning." OTOH you certainly know that there are tons of freeware, free software and open source projects which are not developed any more because of lack of interest from the original developers or some other reason.

If you can't understand the incipit, then please check the IPB Campaign.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: blaming perl for not using a build policy
by samizdat (Vicar) on Sep 09, 2008 at 17:01 UTC
    I accept your distinction, blazar. :)

    Don Wilde
    "There's more than one level to any answer."