🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <74@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes:

>   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.
You should recon (if you have ever used it) that GCC is much better than any
compiler provided with standard software/system package coming from any
hardware manufacturer. The quality of GCC is wonderful knowing that it
comes from a research environment (i.e. non industrial). The lack of
stability of any early FSF software (and I think current GCC version
still is an early one, compared to what it will be in a couple of
years!) is the tribute to "pay" for having research sofware becoming
available to so many users. Don't you think that the speed at which GNU
software is evolving clearly shows that people are satisfied by what
they can buy from their favourite computor vendor?


>   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?

If people have time to do it, what are you complaining about? Nobody
has never been required to improve GNU software, not even required to
use it.

 
>   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?

What is the reason why the authors of ksh and tcsh decided there was a
strong need to have something different from sh and csh? What is the
reason for having so many version sof UNIX today while V7 was OK?
(shall I say a word about V6?)


>   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.

Stallman's philosophy (ethic?) is surely debattable. From my personal
point of view, I don't feel the right to publicly critize the ideas of
someone as long as I'm only using the software is providing me with on
a free basis. I'm using GNU software because I personnally decided to,
I'm not working for RMS because I've been forced to...

Don't take it as an offending remark, but I don't think that, as far
as the endlessly going debate about "free software vs. the
other one" is concerned, your posting will not make things progress.

Sylvain
--
----------------
Sylvain Langlois		  "Dogmatic attachement to the supposed merits
(sylvain@chorus.fr)		   of a particular structure hinders the search
(sylvain%chorus.fr@uunet.uu.net)   of an appropriate structure" (Robert Fripp)