Re: Common to use Autotools just to avoid Makefile work even if noportability concerns???

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> Given Redhat seem to be the Microsoft of the Linux World, I think there
> is a lot to be said for developing code that works Linux systems other
> than Redhat. I have a few old machines here and have installed Debian,
> as that really is a free Linux. There is no commercial organisation
> making huge $$$ from selling the software. I believe some of Redhat's
> tools (i.e. installation programs) are not open source. Okay, they are
> slick and nice, but they are not GPL'ed.
If you mean RPM: RPM is and has always been released under GPL

If you mean anaconda: ditto.

What do you mean?

> Have you actually tried downloading ISO images from Redhat's web site
> - if not I can tell you the download speed is very slow.
Try one of the mirrors - the Red Hat site is overloaded by people trying 
to download stuff (which makes it slow, of course)

> This only leads me to think they make it that way, so you get fed up and
> go out and buy their CDs. If everyone keeps using Redhat, they will
> become a monopoly. It would not seem too different from Microsoft then.
> So that's what I have against Redhat.
Being popular doesn't give you a monopoly. They don't own half of what 
they distribute and they distribute the sources for everything. 
Additionally, the GPL doesn't say "thou shalt not sell CDs" nor does it 
say "thou shalt give it away for free" or "thou shalt not make a profit": 
it says "thou shalt not take away other people's rights" and "thou shalt 
provide the Source" (but not in that wording).

I don't work for Red Hat, but I would have no moral objections in doing 
so. I would in working for Microsoft, for obvious reasons..

> As for portability, it is a lot easier to build in portability from
> the start, rather than thinking about it later. 
I agree with you there :)

[snipped the rest]

rlc