My favorite part about your post is how you intentionally spin it to mean the opposite of what I said.
Linux requires source compilation by design. This ensures that the Linux ecosystem stays open no matter what. The term “ABI” literally stands for Application Binary Interface. Having a stable one is literally the antithesis of a libre/open-source project. You could try for something like reproducible builds but this disallows for distros to make their own builds as-needed with the necessary flags and patches enabled/disabled.
The purpose of this isn’t to make apps require maintenance, its to enforce the open-source nature of the project. Stallman was a gross toenail-eating weirdo but he was dead to rights on the principals he held, and it’s because of him and thousands of developers like him that you even have an OS to escape from Microsoft onto.
People like you just want Linux to be “Windows without the bullshit” instead of trying to set aside your decades of conditioning in order to learn how to use the tool properly. If someone hands you a hammer, I bet you’d try to spin it on top of a nail to get it to sink into the wood instead of realizing its not a screwdriver.
The term “ABI” literally stands for Application Binary Interface. Having a stable one is literally the antithesis of a libre/open-source project.
Can you elaborate? Having an ABI does not make an project libre/open-source… but one might be wrong. And This creature is open to a different point of view.
Linux requires source compilation by design.
So does every other software on this planet? Microsoft Windows requires compilation from source. The source just happens to not be under an open-source license (or even source available to have a look inside for oneself…)
My favorite part about your post is how you intentionally spin it to mean the opposite of what I said.
Linux requires source compilation by design. This ensures that the Linux ecosystem stays open no matter what. The term “ABI” literally stands for Application Binary Interface. Having a stable one is literally the antithesis of a libre/open-source project. You could try for something like reproducible builds but this disallows for distros to make their own builds as-needed with the necessary flags and patches enabled/disabled.
The purpose of this isn’t to make apps require maintenance, its to enforce the open-source nature of the project. Stallman was a gross toenail-eating weirdo but he was dead to rights on the principals he held, and it’s because of him and thousands of developers like him that you even have an OS to escape from Microsoft onto.
People like you just want Linux to be “Windows without the bullshit” instead of trying to set aside your decades of conditioning in order to learn how to use the tool properly. If someone hands you a hammer, I bet you’d try to spin it on top of a nail to get it to sink into the wood instead of realizing its not a screwdriver.
Can you elaborate? Having an ABI does not make an project libre/open-source… but one might be wrong. And This creature is open to a different point of view.
So does every other software on this planet? Microsoft Windows requires compilation from source. The source just happens to not be under an open-source license (or even source available to have a look inside for oneself…)