🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <fWTeSfY@quack.sac.ca.us> dfox@quack.sac.ca.us (David Fox) writes:
>In article <BzIx0C.C6G@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>>In article <fWPrzAU@quack.sac.ca.us>, dfox@quack.sac.ca.us (David Fox) writes:

>>|>>|>> So far, the most "open" system I can think of is a 386 running DOS:
>>|>>|>> - systems available from all sorts of people
>>|>>|>> - CPU's available from (at least) AMD, Intel, IBM, and Cyrix

>>|>shell out to the various software writers to try those compilers out.
>>|>With Unix, one can get gcc for free, including source.

But this is on an obsolete computer.  Are any of the newer machines in this
category?  

However, I disagree with the apparent philosophy of the so-called recent
"open systems" approach.  The idea seems to be that information on the
internals will be available to VENDORS, who may or may not put things in.
Now it does not pay a vendor to make a minor change which provides a 
substantial improvement for even 1000 small users, while the users themselves,
given reasonable information, could make it easily.  

A truly open system would enable a user to get rid of the user inimical
(usually called friendly) obstacles which the vendors have put in to reach
the mass market, and to come up with reasonable software.  A disassembler
should be required for ALL software, or a promise to very quickly take care
of these obstacles.

Only someone who is arrogant, ignorant, or stupid can expect vendors to
supply the variety of software which is needed to get good performance.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)