@2008-01-20, David Smead: > Oleg Kobrin, > Oleg Verych, > > Let me see if I have the logic correct for this list, per your examples. > > It's NOT acceptable to criticize TI, a multi-billion dollar corporation, > who, through their refusal to support Open Source, causes Linux users > extra effort to use their processors, if it's even possible.
I was trying to say, that request software from TI, is not an open source way. > It IS acceptable to be ill informed about Richard Stallman's altruism, > without which there would probably be no Open Source development tools, > and the environment that allowed Linux to flourish would not have > existed. It is Free Software way, yes. In open source people are doing job, not waving hands about software freedom. > I was designing programmable logic controllers in 1964 and > mini-computers two years later. Yea, much much before i was born. I appreciate your wisdom and experience. > I've seen language compilers sell for as much as $100,000, ($5,000,000 > in today's money), but now you can get one free. Yep, http://www.toad.com/gnu/cygnus/index.html i know. Here connection to RMS is starting to loose. And after bureaucracy and policy in GCC development (don't you know EGCS fork, now PCC development by Open BSD guys), i can see, that gcc *developers* acknowledge technological loss. This is not open source. OTOH, i now, that few people were writing compilers, operating systems and tools In 1983, a now-defunct company named the Mark Williams company produced and sold a very good UNIX clone called Coherent. Most of the work was done by three ex-students from the University of Waterloo: Dave Conroy, Randall Howard, and Johann George. It took them two years. But they produced not only the kernel, but the C compiler, shell, and ALL the UNIX utilities. This is far more work than just making a kernel. It is likely that the kernel took less than a man-year. `-- http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/ Why they failed, because of not being open source (by Cygnus definition!). Now, people were relying on GCC, but FSF policy led it to bad technology on long run, without RMS even being a developer. > Thanks Richard, and all the others who have contributed to the GNU tool > chain. This is going to be a religious flame. > BTW, djpp is a port of gcc for DOS. To build the openwatcom C compiler > on Linux you need gcc. So gcc is in fact the panacea that some wish to > deny. I like to think of GNU tools as the stem cells for much of > software development today. I can't imagine why anyone would disparage > Stallman and GNU except out of ignorance. I'd like to talk about history (gcc, tools, kernels, bash, emacs, flamewars), facts and technology. But i might be too young to see right from left, so i'm stopping now, sorry. -- -o--=O`C #oo'L O <___=E M
