On 02-10-2007 10:37:25 +0100, Roy Marples wrote: > > "vendor lock-in" is an interesting term to mention here, as bash is open > > source, and I think (I'm not a lawyer) free to use as long as you want, > > and modifyable if you like. > > Just because it's open source does not mean that it won't try and lock > you in.
as far as I'm aware it can't lock you in as in the original definition of the term "lock-in", but I get your point, even though I disagree. > > Question from me to you is, whether your vision is just to get (Free)BSD > > working seamlessly with Gentoo, or whether you also look beyond your > > current scope to the "Meta Distribution". This includes the benefit of > > moving from bash to POSIX(?) sh as standard kit to interpret the meta > > information. Changing init.d scripts is one thing, changing the > > definition of how the meta information should be read is another thing. > > A common parlance on Slashdot when referring to Microsoft is that > monoculture is bad. Forcing bash and GNU tools down everyones throat is > no better - it's just replacing one monoculture with another one. Which doesn't seem to be an answer to the question at all to me. My question was basically about what the benefits are of changing the meta information interpretation definition. In other words, if project X says their code should be compiled with GCC, what are the benefits exactly if you change that into "should be compiled with a C99 compliant compiler", considering you are eventually interested in the produced code only. (Is it worth it to teach/force devs to use something else if this is only how to obtain the end product, which should run with "anything"?) -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
