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

[Ian Molton]

Frank Mitchell wrote:
> 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:

Sorry, but I've been around this LUG for a while, and I think its safe 
to say we have a _very_ strong leaning away from anything proprietary.

and who can blame us? We're here BECAUSE we dont want proprietary 
software (such as windows, or even, sort of, MacOS).

I *personally* havent benefitted from your tool at all - Even if you 
think Im dumb enough to run a binary of unknown and unverifiable origin, 
I dont have a single machine here (other than my web and storage 
machines, neither of which have CD burners), that can run your program.

My desktop is purely 64 bit, and my other machines are all non-X86.

> Free in the sense that you don't need to pay
> money for it.

Not free as in I cant do as I please with it.

 > I'd prefer comments from Users, who actually gave Trebus a
> try.

Why dont you try mailing users of Trebus then?

 > Why doesn't Alan Pope get involved in a bit of Destructive Testing?

Why should he? You're basically asking him to find bugs without access 
to the source, and his skills would be best used on a project where he 
could contribute back directly to the source.

> Then if he finds problems he can email everybody and tell them how Trebus is
> rubbish. Wouldn't that be satisfying for him?

No. Most OSS advocates / programmers find their satisfaction in writing 
a useful tool that helps others. Im sure hed be happier contributing to 
another CD archiving project, rather than rubbishing yours.

> But clearly some people would have complained anyway.

If you shit in public, "some people" will complain anyway. You are 
absolutely right.

Spamming binaries to LUG/OSS mailinglists is tantamount to shitting on 
them. Its thoughtless.

> 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.

Ok. write me a desktop as good as GNOME :)

> 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.

Sure - and if they used GPLed code then they are obliged to. plain simle 
stuff.

> 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.

IF you're linking purely with LGPL stuff.

 > 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.

LGPL is deprecated.

HTH. HAND.