RE: SP2 is killing me. Help?

[ktabic <lists () ktabic co uk>]

On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 13:35 -0400, joe wrote:
> > And as for backwards compatibility, OSS software 
> > generally doesn't have to worry about backwards 
> > compatibility, the source is advailble, so most 
> > of the time it's possible to make it work. Oh, 
> > and I find wine on linux offers better than M$, 
> > for my needs.
>  
> You talk throughout your email about many people at home and then also
> insert this gem into it... So it is ok if you break older functionality if
> you supply the source? What on earth for? So someone can change it to make
> it work again for themselves? Does this apply to even a majority of the OSS
> users let alone masses of home users? 

Reread what I said. Did I say at any point that *I* would modify it for
my own purposes? Did I say at any point that Joe Average Home User could
or would modify it at any point?
No?
What I said was that it is possible for code to be modified to over come
backwards compatibility problems. Generally that isn't a problem for OS
software in the first place.
But when there is an abandoned OSS project, that is no longer
compatible, for what ever reason, someone can take the project, (or even
fork it if it is jus the original dev not liking the latest version) and
make it work.
This cannot be done with closed source software. 

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html