🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PAUL.89Jul10160341@marvin.moncam.co.uk> paul@moncam.co.uk (Paul Hudson) writes:
>Emacs was first implemented by RMS. Gcc is better than other
>compilers, IMHO. We get a 30% performance benefit through using Gcc,
>as well as the improvements that come with an ANSI C compiler. Sun
>can't sell me and ANSI compiler yet.  Bash is improved over other
>shells - if new versions aren't allowed you better discard csh.

You are missing the clue from my manifesto. I never said gcc
was not a good compiler:
1. but I think Stallman is not the only good compiler writer in
   the world so don't pretend gcc is the only useable C-compiler 
   around.
2. I want a C-compiler provided and supported by my computer vendor.
   I don't want to port gcc to my specific hardware because that's
   not what I'm payed to do. Are you?
And yes, it's ok to make a new improved tool like the csh. But isn't
it a bit dumb to recreate the bourne shell when other people already
provided you with csh and ksh?

>If you don't like GNU software, don't use it. But to protest because
>someone chooses to make available good, free, software is futile.
The protest is against the crazy idea that it is forbidden to create
a piece of software, support it and ask money for it. Try reading
the gnu manifest with software replaced with hardware and see how
you like it. There is nothing wrong with software being paid for.



Mart van Stiphout
Eindhoven University of Technology
Dept. of Electrical Engineering -- Room EH7.34
P.O.Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl