News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Software Jewels Are Rare (1996) [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:Why Software Jewels Are Rare (1996) [pdf] by renewiltord on Saturday April 03, 2021 @05:03PM (#26684712)
Interestingly, as a predominantly Linux user, I have no such folder. Notably, while the utility software has consistently improved, the UX software has definitely had ups and downs.

And I can't substitute my GUI shell that easily so I keep the default and suck it up.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Software Jewels Are Rare (1996) [pdf] by taeric on Saturday April 03, 2021 @10:46PM (#26686509)
You say that, and yet you probably do still use perl/shell/other obscure tool that is rather old. In particularly, at the foundation layer.

BLAS and friends would be a good candidate for old software.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Software Jewels Are Rare (1996) [pdf] by renewiltord on Saturday April 03, 2021 @10:55PM (#26686540)
Right, right, but it's fresh (compiles with today compiler, links to glibc etc.) not some archaeological artifact I'm boarding.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Software Jewels Are Rare (1996) [pdf] by taeric on Saturday April 03, 2021 @11:17PM (#26686624)
Fair... I am not sure that changes the idea, though. TeX, as an example, stands as a jewel. Even if it has things we could and probably do criticize today, it has proven ridiculous value.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Software Jewels Are Rare (1996) [pdf] by renewiltord on Saturday April 03, 2021 @11:37PM (#26686713)
Right, right. Not arguing with article premise, just mentioning that a useful effect of useful open source software is that this stuff generally remains true.

And I'm not a zealot or anything. I just like this aspect.

[ Parent | on HN ]