1. Re: Visual Euphoria wont run ATT:Matt Lewis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Lewis"
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: Visual Euphoria wont run ATT:Matt Lewis
>
>
> posted by: Matt Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at yahoo.com>
>
> your average Joe wrote:
> >
> > As you say 99% of them are open source so what's your [BLEEP] problem
with me
> > being in the 1%
I roughly agree on the 99% open source number.
> I don't have a "[BLEEP]" problem. I was just responding to your previous
> comment, which in my view misrepresented what most of the user archives
> are about.
I agree
> Personally, I tend not to use stuff submitted without source.
> One reason is that I like to be able to fix bugs when I come across them.
Can't fix a bug or provide a bug fix without source.
Giving error responses and get the owner to duplicate is difficult at best.
Sometimes it is quick and easy but most times it isn't.
> There's also the security issue (not that I scritinize every line of
> code). There have been malicious programs (in exe form) submitted around
> here in the past, which caused a lot of grief. See:
>
>
http://www.listfilter.com/cgi-bin/esearch.exu?fromMonth=9&fromYear=3&toMonth
=A&toYear=3&postedBy=&keywords=snake.exe
Technically this is very true. But I tend not to concern myself with it
much.
My other reason is that most contributions come without documetation of any
kind.
Without source you push this button and then that one. With source you can
usually
look around and find out a bit more of what it is suppose to be doing.
> I believe that RDS tests (at least I remember that they used to)
> submissions on a junk box to see if anything bad happens, but that's
> not exactly exhaustive testing.
Agreed. Better than nothing but still not everything.
> I'm not sure why you think there would be 50 VE clones. The way things
> tend to work around here is that if people modified it, they'd send the
> source to you for inclusion assuming they already took the time to
> download, run and use it in the first place, which most probably won't,
> unless there's source. This is a community of programmers, so we like
> source code.
There is more likely to be a clone is there isn't source than if there is.
Just look at linux. Reverse engineering mean anything to you?
> I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't submit contributions without source,
> but just don't be surprised when it doesn't get a great reception.
>
> Matt Lewis
Agreed. Some will accept. Others won't.
I'm also of the stance that the contributuions should be open source.
Even libs can't be updated/upgraded/enhanced/repaired if they aren't open.
unkmar
