Strategy (was Re: Improving copyright)

Rui Miguel Seabra rms at
Sun May 16 16:15:00 UTC 2004

On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 17:38 +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
> I would argue it's not a Linux binary - I know that's slicing words. 
> Ok clarified version: "A Linux binary from 1996 of a similar 
> complexity to typical binaries running on Windows at the same period 
> stands *zero* *chance* of running unmodified on the latest Linux 
> without some form of library emulation package". Quite a mouthful, 
> which is why I didn't write it first time.

More over:
  what he did wasn't a library emulation, he installed the required
libraries to run that program.

> > And IMHO binary compatibility isn't really important. Source
> > compatibility is a lot more important, because you can just recompile
> > the program you have.
> Do even 90% of the world's computer users know what a compiler is?

While they're not taught, no. While they are "trained" like monkeys at
school on "software which is something they ust buy to use" they'll
never understand what it is or why they should have an idea of how to
use it.

> That kind of foolish statement is unfortunately typical of 
> programmers from a Unix background. Thank god we're finally getting 
> over it.

Oh.. really? So what abot all those 90% of the people of the world who
are awaking to the computer age with GNU/Linux?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list