Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!cleanfeed4-a.proxad.net!nnrp3-2.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: =?UTF-8?Q?St=C3=A9phane?= CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr>
Subject: Re: Linux 6.11
References: <lm08i2Ffm78U1@mid.individual.net> <vdesp8$2bp7n$1@dont-email.me>
Organization: Mulots' Killer
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 04 Oct 2024 20:49:00 GMT
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <670054bc$0$3702$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Oct 2024 22:49:00 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 78.201.248.7
X-Trace: 1728074940 news-3.free.fr 3702 78.201.248.7:40442
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 5541

Le 30-09-2024, Phillip Frabott <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> a écrit :
> I've been hesitant to get involved here because of all the non-constructive back 
> and forth going on about the Cooledit program. But I'll just leave this here..

There is almost no use to repeat a full message. On almost use is as my
FAI doesn't provide me every message I miss things. It's not a big deal
because there's a lot of garbage here. But from time to time, I miss
something. Like the message the OP answered you. But, I'll answer only
here.

> If the software does nothing innovative to solve a problem that exists
> that isn't already solved with other software already on the market
> then as far as I'm concerned, whats the point?

As far as you are concerned, I understand and I have nothing against
that. Now, for others looking for a software, there are, at least, three
things that can be considered.

First, it's availability. You don't want to change your OS with each
software you want to use. So, if it's not a concern for you, it can be a
valid concerned for others.

Second, it's licence. Some don't care about the license others do. So if
a software is valid under a license you don't like, switching to
another software doing the same things under a license you like can be a
valid point. I'm mean license in a very broad way. For example a licence
provided by Oracle is bad even if it looks good can they can switch the
license without warning. They already did it, they can do it again, they
are not the only one. Or a software provided by Sony should be avoided
at all cost because having already put some rootkit they are not
trustworthy.

Third One can try another software for inspiration. The software can
have a good inspiring thing one could either bring it to his favorite
software or find a way to use his favorite software in a way he didn't
considered before.

Now, for a developer point of view, there is no better way to improve
than doing by oneself what others already did. It doesn't mean others
should use those software but it mean the developer is right of doing
it.

> Now I haven't looked at Cooledit myself but I would have to ask what
> exact technological issue is Cooledit solving that other software does
> not already solve?

The main issue here is you won't find answer here. Either you do it by
yourself or you go somewhere else hopping someone can answer you. But I
have nowhere to give you.

The fact is: the only one who pretends to know cooledit is the worst
aficionado you can find in the all world. He has already answered you
and you can judge by yourself.

I said "he pretends" because I'm not even sure he's using it as he
pretends so many things he doesn't know you can't never be sure about
his claims. The only thing you can be sure about, he proved it many
times, is: he knows nothing and can only copy past non understood things
he found on Internet.

> These are two questions I always ask everyone that comes to me (at work) with a 
> new concept, idea, or finished program/product. What problem is it trying to 
> solve and what are it's shortcomings. Answer those before you try to sell 
> someone on a new product, service, or software. It will help you in the long 
> run.

I fully understand that in a professional context. In the open source,
one can have other motivations.

> Hopefully this is coming as a constructive reply to that conversation

This is, that's why I did answered it seriously.

> I chose not to include all the back and forth conversations in this
> thread on my reply because 

It would have been a mistake. There would have been to many already read
messages and your answer would have been difficult to find. For what
it's worth, I wouldn't have found it. I would have switch to another
message well before. So now, depending on your liking of my answer, you
can judge if you where right or wrong.

> it's just not constructive with name calling on both sides 

Agreed. I very rarely rely on mere insults either. As Joseph JOUBERT
said: « Le but de la discussion ne doit pas être la victoire mais
l'amélioration. » Which could be translated in English in something like
"The purpose of the discussion shouldn't be the victory but the
improvement."

OK, sometimes, it looks like I do this with the OP, but it's a little
bit different. He's a pet dog which needs some stick thrown from time to
time for him to fetch. But as one can't have a serious discussion with
the OP, the only possibilities are either to ignore him or have fun with
him.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io