[SC.LUG] I'd Prefer Comments From Actual Trebus Users

[Frank Mitchell]

Dear SC_LUG:

I see where Alan Pope is coming from. It's hard to miss the point he's
making. But nobody's lost anything with Trebus. Instead the LUG has gained a
Free CD Archiving Utility: Free in the sense that you don't need to pay
money for it. I'd prefer comments from Users, who actually gave Trebus a
try. Why doesn't Alan Pope get involved in a bit of Destructive Testing?
Then if he finds problems he can email everybody and tell them how Trebus is
rubbish. Wouldn't that be satisfying for him? He could even register for the
SC_LUG Wiki and put his comments there for others to read at their leisure.

Reviewing the fuss at NWLUG, I don't see the reason for it now. Anybody can
download free Linux Anti-Virus Software and give Trebus a scan. If he was
suspicious, Andrew Hutchings could have done this for them, though he said
he didn't have the time. Unless I've invented a new Linux Virus as well as a
new Linux CD Archiver, what's the problem? I understand it looked suspicious
when I talked about running Trebus as root, even on an old machine, and I'll
give more attention to Users and Groups next time. But clearly some people
would have complained anyway.

And why the denunciation of Closed Source? Buy Debian Sarge and you get Open
Source aplenty. The Debian Popularity Contest indicates they've got more
Open Source Code than they know what to do with, and they're trying to
identify stuff to unload. Okay it's handy to look at somebody else's Source
Code and see how some things were done. But I regard the whole Reusable Code
doctrine as a fallacy. In the time you take to figure out which bits are
relevant and how to adapt them, you could write your own original code which
works alot better for your needs, probably with less effort.

Meanwhile some people are trying to encourage the development of Proprietary
Linux Software. The main obstacle is that firms assume they're being asked
to reveal their Source Code. Furthermore this whole issue was dealt with way
back in the  LGPL, which says I can reveal my Object Files rather than my
Source Code. FSF can then examine these with a Hex Editor and see whether
I'm infringing their Library Licenses. In fact LGPL seems devoted to
encouraging people like me to do what I'm attempting with my LUGware
License, while leaving my Source Code out of the picture.

Faictz Ce Que Vouldras: Frank Mitchell




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.6/213 - Release Date: 23/12/2005