[OS X TeX] 64-bit binaries in TeXLive 2010
herbs at wideopenwest.com
Sat Dec 5 20:03:56 CET 2009
On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Alain Schremmer wrote:
>>>>> This just pushes the question back to the developer tools and compilers, etc. Why should *they* move ahead in a manner that makes the software developed with them
>>>> obsolete? If so, because it makes for sales, and, in the case of free software, because, like the Everest, it is there.
>>> Given that folks putting together the ``free'' software have no profit motive it usually means that there are feature changes and/or bug fixes if they put in the time to issue an update. It also isn't always obvious that there was a problem unless you run into it directly; that doesn't mean it won't bite you in the future.
>> You're both right, I think. Ideally, there would be worthwhile features or bug fixes…but I've seen a fair amount of open source development changes made for no apparent reason. Without pointing at any project in particular, rewriting existing code to fit the random design whim of the day often introduces a slew of new bugs, and is very annoying to everyone but the developer :).
> I still do not understand why this has to be an "either/or but not both". Why can't "old" versions remain available with a short note to the effect that "this was working under such and such condition."
> Puzzled regards
Well at 1.3GB on EACH CTAN server (and there are multiple around the world) I'm sure that if you want to pay for the HD space they'd consider doing it! Please remember that ``free'' is still costing some generous soul/institution/company money.
(herbs at wideopenwest dot com)
More information about the macostex-archives