Hi,
On 06/22/2010 12:37 PM, "sankarshan (সঙ্কর্ষণ)" wrote:
http://pcquest.ciol.com/content/editorscolumn/techetete/2010/110010801.asp
I think we are losing the value of Open Source. The core objective of Open Source has been to let people learn the internals of a software application with the help of source code, and improve it further so that everyone benefits.
[...]
Let's understand this with my favorite example-Anaconda installer for RedHat based Linux distros. Anaconda is a fantastic piece of software, but it lacks documentation. So to modify it, you have to be a reverse engineer, and not a software developer. Therefore, contributing to its further development is difficult.
As someone who has actually hacked on anaconda I can say this is 100% nonsense as far as anaconda is concerned, because:
a. Anaconda is a distro installer -- the Fedora/Red Hat/Red Had based system's installer !! It is not an application per-se, and the very nature of a distro installer implies that there will be a new release every 6 months which implies that there will be very specific changes to complement changes introduced by the distro. For example, change from ext2->LVM->ext3->ext4 between the FC6 (?) to F13 releases. Now, /despite/ this
b. Anaconda /design/ and structure are *very* well documented: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/SourceOverview
c. Even the general structure of the two stages of the installation are well documented: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Stage1DevelopmentGuide https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Stage2DevelopmentGuide
d. The anaconda community is /very/ helpful knowing full well that people who do what to hack on anaconda might be a bit lot/intimidated by the source code. So, what might be missing in documentation is more that made up in the mailing-list archives or better yet by asking a question.
That article is just a rant for the sake of a rant -- no substance, no research. I doubt the author even ever wanted to hack on anaconda.
cheers, - steve