At Sat, 15 Mar 2003 11:58:48 +0200, Aryan Ameri wrote: > > On Saturday 15 March 2003 03:05, John Hasler wrote: > > > I know the shortcomings of csh have been discussed > > > elsewhere in this thread. But tcsh is enhanced csh. > > > > I have no problem with csh (or tcsh) as a login shell. It is > > just not suitable for scripting. > > > > > Perhaps you should rephrase your complaint to address a > > > more significant issue, the presence of non-free software > > > in the build system of a supposedly free software project: > > > I have no faith in the quality of the work of developers > > > who would choose to use Java in their build system. > > > > I wasn't aware of that. So much for OO.o. > > > > And the fact that Sun would put _both_ csh _and_ Java in a > > build system tells me a lot about Sun. None of it good. > > Well, I was the original poster of the tread, which asked > wether I should read that specific book in order to learn shell > programming or not. first, thanks form everyone, with their > detailed advises, I am now reading the book, following the > Bourne examples, an am quite happy with this. > > But now that the discussion is about OOo, let me express my > opinions about it as a user. > > OK you guys say that, OOo is bad software because they use csh, > and they use java to build it. Don't get me wrong, I am a true > believer in free software, but I guess sometimes, you have to > see things from a different point of view.
Not bad. I'd say just "not ideal." > If OOo wasn't here, I couldn't have been using GNU/Linux. As > simple as that. I am a university student, and in my > university, everybody depends on MS Office. All the lecturer's > presentations are given in power point, and all lecturer's put > theire lecture notes on theire website. and guess what, all > these documents are in MS Word or MS PowrPoint format. Using > OOo, I haven't had a single problem with all these. I am able > to view all these files perfectly, and I save my homeworks in > MS Office format, and email them to my lecturer. If I didn't > have OOo, I was forced to install windows on one of my > partitions, and that's something that I really hate. > > I will always be thankfull to Sun, for releasing OOo. I even > use OOo Draw, to draw algorithms and flowcharts, something that > my classmates have to use MS Visio for. Ligther than the OO.o suite: sodipodi (gtk) and karbon (kde). You might also try using blender. But that would be 3D overkill. > And in my opinion, using non free software in developing a > software, shouldn't disqualify it from being free software > (although RMS won't agree with me ). As far as I can see, OOo > is licensed under LGPL, and that's good enough for me. If by non-free development you mean fairly trivial stuff live revision control, that's also good enough for me. But if by development you mean using build system that *might* require you to pay royalties. Since Java has a non-free license, there's a risk that Sun might be bought out by somebody less inclined to support free software. Without finding a replacement for the Java stuff (which some people appear to be already doing), how then can Debian, Redhat and friends recompile OO.o to fix stuff like security holes? > Besides, Linus is also using non free software to develop the > kernel. Does that also mean, that we should all abandon the > Linux kernel, and regard it as non free software? Not quite the analogy you're looking for. You don't need AFAICT non-free software to build your linux kernel. OTOH OO.o requires Java to build. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
