Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidge From: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Programmers should move from mac to NeXT Message-ID: <1990Nov15.062739.5314@julius.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 15 Nov 90 06:27:39 GMT References: Sender: news@julius.cs.uiuc.edu (USENet News) Reply-To: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu Distribution: comp Organization: U of Illinois, Dept. of Computer Science, Systems Research Group Lines: 62 anderson@sapir.cog.jhu.edu (Stephen R. Anderson) writes: >Programmers who attempt to develop on macs under A/UX find that the >range of available tools there is almost derisory, and what there is >is not up to date or fully functional. To have a useful C-compiler, >debugger or even a decent programming editor, it has been necessary to >port the work of the GNU project to A/UX: even Apple's developers use >GNUemacs and gcc. Which can be said of NeXT, HP, Sun, DG, IBM, and DEC, for that matter. None of these vendors bundles a really good environment. Some of them bundle more bits (DEC's DecStations have a decent compiler, NeXT uses GCC, etc), but most of them provide tragically bad tools. A/UX compares _very_ well to competing Unix products. Yes, there are bad tools; yes, some of the stuff is old; yes, many A/UX users have gone to using GNU tools (hey, I'm one of the people doing lots of porting!). That puts A/UX users just about even with people using other UNIX's; it's not all that much of a slam of Apple to point out flaws that every other major vendor's Unix shares. I've developed (in the past 6 months) on: A/UX, SunOS, IRIX, DG/UX, UMAX (Encore), HP/UX, and Ultrix. A/UX is behind in some areas and ahead in others. On balance, it's about the most "compatible" unix around (using SunOS as the reference point, as everyone now tends to do). If GNU tools are used to provide part of that compatibility, so are they on most of the other machines on my list. >Reading about the reasons for which FSF/GNU does not >support this effort, or even condone it (though they do not directly >block or forbid such work on the part of others) has made many >programmers see that they really ought not to support Apple; but if >the only alternatives are MS-DOS machines or pure UNIX boxes, there >hasn't seemed to be much of a choice. Yes, and it's made a lot of other programmers think the FSF is being tragically short-sighted and hypocritical. If look-and-feel suits are a bad idea (and they are, especially given 75 year copyright protection at stake), there are many more useful, less hypocritical, and less damaging means of fighting them then the boycott. The boycott has two virtues: it's very simple, and it makes people think they're doing something positive. And the FSF does try to block people porting to A/UX by refusing to accept patches from A/UX developers while accepting patches from everyone else. That's their right; they control their distribution and they have the right to refuse assistance. But they are trying, as best as possible, to block and hinder people supporting GNU tools, and to block and hinder the growth of freely distributable software. Apple distributed FSF code with A/UX 1.0; they stopped with 1.1, and rumor has it that they stopped due to pressure from the FSF. I won't dwell on NeXT's likelihood of ignoring look and feel; however, Steve Jobs is known for his support of such ideas. NeXT may find themselves on the other side of a FSF boycott one of these days, too, along with just about everyone else. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1990 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.