Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!eutrc3!euteal!mart From: mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: BISON, GCC, and the GNU public license. (Re: increasing yacc states) Message-ID: <107@euteal.ele.tue.nl> Date: 22 Aug 89 10:50:51 GMT References: <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26609@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5271@ficc.uu.net> <14699@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> <95@euteal.ele.tue.nl> <714@skye.ed.ac.uk> <105@euteal.ele.tue.nl> <738@skye.ed.ac.uk> Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Lines: 23 In article <738@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton) writes: >So? I've used well-supported commecial software too. Nonetheless, >the GNU stuff works better and is, in effect, better supported than >quite a bit of the commercial software I've used. How can you make a du,b generalization like this `the GNU stuff works better'. Is there some physical law that says GTNU software is always the best??? >>Gnu starts out by relying on the vendor supplied !commercial! software >>they despise. If they were honest guys, they would start off with writing >>their own operating system. > >No, designing and manufacturing their own chips, and getting their >own raw materials. Give me a break. Didn't gnu intend to provide a new "free" unix version. Where is it? >Who said it must be better. But it's certainly not always worse. You yourself claim it is better. See your statement above. Mart van Stiphout