Re: Geeonx GUI library for LINUX and SDL 1.2

On Tuesday 04 October 2016 08:56:54 actsl wrote:
> 
> > The true measure of one's software skills is in having one's work widely
> > accepted by the community of users.
> 
> Wrong.

I think you'll find many who will disagree on that point. Your statement is 
your opinion; don't state an opinion as a fact, it makes you look like an 
idiot. Just say you disagree. Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

I doubt that many would say Linus Torvalds doesn't have good software skills. 
(With the exception of Andrew Tanenbaum.)

> Software is complex.

Of course it is. What does that have to do with any statements I made?

> So rarely is its value estimated by analyzing the code itself.

At what point did I say anything about analyzing code. My claim is that having 
one's software accepted and *used* by the community *is* a measure of one's 
software skills. This applies to FOSS, not necessarily the kind of crap 
Microsoft forces down peoples' throats. And it's not the only measure of one's 
skills, just a very good one.

> like when a
>  carpenter makes a good furniture, everyone sees that it's a good
>  furniture, and has a value. Very different when making software.

Really? How so?
> 
> > But perhaps of most importance to those like the OP is that many
> > companies 
> these days prefer to hire those who've done successful FOSS. If you're good
>  at it, the doors are wide open in the job market.
> 
> Very wrong. I talked to one IT manager (Finnish),

One sample is not confirmation of a hypothesis. Yet you state your opinion as 
if it were fact.

I've seen many job listings that state in the job requirements that FOSS work, 
or at least open source work, is a plus. And no, I didn't make a list of them 
so don't ask me to provide that info. Do the research yourself.
> 
> Thus open source development can kill people.

You might be right, but I've never heard of a single case where someone died 
because of their open source work.
> 
> But again, why that paradigm, open source or commercial, why does it have
>  to be so extreme, why only that must be considered right, and nothing
>  else. What about a license that says that the source will be made open
>  after 5 years, or then yes, will be made open after a certain amount of
>  money has been received. Why these shouldn't be the options at all?
> 
They are options. At no time did I ever make the claims you're contesting 
here. Market your software any way you like.

Jeff