🚀 go-pugleaf

>    Why is typical GNU software a remake of something that has been around
>    for a long time, preferrably for decades already? Isn't the FSF in
>    an ideal situation to try something new in software, not facing the
>    risks of a commercial enterprise?

> Tee hee.  One of the most constant things we at the FSF hear is how
> much better our software is than everyone else's.

> The stunning thing, really, is how anyone can say that the FSF is just
> trodding on well worn ground.  We have made so many advancements that
> comments that we are just reinventing the wheel are ludicrous.

I think that usually when people make the claims that R. Lamberts (top)
is making, they are referring to external interface designs.  They are
suggesting that it would be better to design a new o.s. from scratch
instead of writing plug-in replacements for existing programs on UNIX.

Maybe by "remake" he really is saying that the GNU programs are no
better than the UNIX ones, but frequently that's not what people mean.
If that's what he means, then Mike Bushnell's response should put that
claim to rest.

Mike Bushnell (the second poster) is talking about internal design and
implementation, taking the external interfaces as a given.

To respond to what I *think* Lamberts really meant:

Hardly anyone would use GNU software if it were incompatible with
everything else.  We don't have big bucks or political influence to
try to peddle a totally new system to the world, like IBM does.
UNIX has a lot of momentum.

We couldn't build and release the system a piece at a time, gradually
replacing proprietary software with free software, if our programs
couldn't coexist with existing systems.  With our resources and
dependence on volunteers, that might mean we would never finish.

And UNIX isn't that bad of a design.  It's not the ultimate, but it's
good enough that we can use it as a starting point, enhance it in some
places, and end up with a good system.
--
David J. MacKenzie <djm@eng.umd.edu> <djm@ai.mit.edu>