David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack <[email protected]> writes:
David Kastrup wrote:
Rjack <[email protected]> writes:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
David Kastrup wrote:
[... about me ...]
He is serious about being an idiot.
Said GNUtian "Huh? You can't be held to a contract you did not
sign" dak.
Seldom have truer words been spoken:
"When have you EVER seen a truly innovative piece of GPL software?
Everything in GPL is a bad copy of some other software that was
developed under a commercial license or a true open source license
like BSD."
http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/read.php?id=157
Huh? You _are_ aware that Stallman worked at the MIT AI Lab during the
1970s? If you mean that all GPL licensed programs started out
non-licensed, then obviously you are confused.
I mean exactly what I first quoted. Try reading it sometime dummkopf.
"When have you EVER seen a truly innovative piece of GPL software?
Everything in GPL is a bad copy of some other software that was
developed under a commercial license or a true open source license
like BSD."
http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/read.php?id=157
This is astonishingly stupid even for your standards. Nobody was
talking about LaTeX anyway, LaTeX is not under the GPL, and being built
with TeX as a base does not mean that it knocks off or steals ideas from
TeX.
*You* first cited the link that referred to LaTex you friggin' moron.
http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/preview-latex.html
Remember? Kemo Sabe.
So please read the link that you are replying
to.http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/preview-latex.html
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/preview-latex.html>
"gcc is just another C compiler,
Uh, and a C++ compiler, and a Fortran compiler, and an Ada compiler, and
an Objective C compiler.
and not a very good one. The Intel compilers compile significantly
faster and produce faster and more memory-efficient code from the same
source.
Uh, gcc is cross-platform, not just for Intel platforms. And its use of
assembly templates both for its own compilation as well as seamless
integration into the optimization passes of user code have no
predecessors I know of.
Quite a few of its C language features were innovative enough that they
have made it (either unmodified or with small changes) into newer C
standards.
I'm sure Borland's compilers are still faster and more efficient than
gcc, too. There used to be many others, but the widespread
availability of a shitty but "free" gcc has poisoned the market."
http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/read.php?id=157
So in short: you have no clue what you are talking about, are too lazy
to make yourself knowledgeable, and quote the unsubstantiated drivel
from some GNU-hate rant as reference.
And you wonder why nobody takes you and your ilk seriously?
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
