🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3h8bb5$ims@macbeth.umd.edu> brewer@macbeth.umd.edu (Peter Brewer) writes:

>In article <19468@comton.airs.com>, Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> wrote:
>>In fact, Cygnus does have a few
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>(smaller) competitors, and Cygnus has not wasted time fighting with
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>them.   *Yet*
>^^^^^

>I think that you have proven my point about bias, the potential for
>nepotism, and the need to protect the FSF/LPF with your own statements
>outlined above. The only reason you do not see this is because you
>are biased.
I don't see it, and I don't see that I have any particular bias.  Actually,
I totally fail to see your point in this post.

I use the FSFs software development tools in preference to any others.  I
think they're the greatest thing since pocket knives, and I wish I had
enough money to pay cygnus to solve all my tool related problems, leaving
me to concentrate on using the tools to get my work done.  

From previous posts I get the impression that your concerns are that
a) the FSF may be pressured by Cygnus (through there mutual development
of software and the fact that Cygnus maintains its own "source tree") to
co-opt its own goals for Cygnus' commercial interests
and
b) that Cygnus is claiming closer connection to the FSF than it really 
has by using the words "Gnu" and "FSF" in its advertising to boost its
credibility.

In the case of a) this just doesn't seem feasible to me, I just don't
see how the Cygnus folks could exert that sort of pressure on a group 
that existed succesfully
before them, that developed tons of good stuff before them, and that
was set up deliberately to not be controlled by commercial interests,
and that has a huge user base around the world, independent of
the work Cygnus has done.

In the case of b) I think you (and I) may have an exagerated view of
how useful claiming association with the FSF is in getting commercial
business opportunities.  Business pays for SUPPORT, and most business's
just don't seem to think that the quality of commercially developed
software is low.  Engineering managers have about as much respect for
attempts to develop freely availabele, modifiable, and distributable
high quality software as they do for "shareware" -- none.

The people I know using gcc and related stuff commercially are doing
it so that when they find the (inevitable) bugs, instead of having to
hope for (and almost certainly pay) for the fixes from the developer
of a commercial compiler, they can fix the problem themselves, immediately,
and get their contract work done without late penalties.

>>
>>I am a Cygnus employee.  I do not speak for it.
>And thus you are biased and unable to speak objectively.
And in this sense who isn't biased?  We all have a point of view,
and some peoples choice of work reflects theirs.

++sam

--
---Sam Roberts <sroberts@physics.ubc.ca> 
-- ...and though they go mad they shall still be sane...