Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!ai-lab!geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu!petrilli From: petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Freewhare hurts the NeXT (was Re: Desktop publishing) Message-ID: <14485@life.ai.mit.edu> Date: 31 Mar 91 04:49:34 GMT References: <1446@toaster.SFSU.EDU> <1991Mar30.063733.27117@news.cs.indiana.edu> <70367@brunix.UUCP> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Distribution: comp Organization: Free Software Foundation Lines: 65 J. Michael Ashley writes: >It's bad, because GNU cc is *not* the last word in C compilers. I am >positive that several or even lots of people out there are capable of >writing a C compiler that will smoke gcc, but they're never going to write >it, because they can't compete against a free product. Why should the Don't be so sure of what other people are capable of... I feel, as the one writing the GNU C Reference Manual that I must interject a little reality into these statements. At the moment, the GNU C compiler is most likely the best there is, and it is still classfied by us as Beta software. We are approaching v2.0, which will include C, C++ and Objective-C (Thanks NeXT!). In my experiences, the GNU Compilers generate better code than ANY compiler, including the one Sun is selling for some $4000. In fact, I know for a fact that Sun, IBM and DEC all use GNU compilers internally. Data General stated that they shipped GNU C instead of pcc because the found the code `substantially superior' in quality. We work damn hard on the GNU compiler, and some of the best programmers in the world work on compiler, including RMS. >sell their compiler in the first place? Because they have to eat, that's >why. GNU gets grants from corporations and the government; not everybody >is that lucky. Not everybody is willing to donate everything they create to the world to benefit society, rather than a single individual. We get grants because the corporations see us as a worthy cause, not to mention half of them use our software. >Furthermore, free software tends to be poorly supported, and I would >lose sleep at night if I knew my hypothetical company was depending on >unsupported software. Yeah, I know there are businesses that exist to >support GNU software, but that doesn't invalidate my previous point, and >at any rate, they only support GNU software. Do you have a problem with companies that specialise in specific software? I have some experience with some of the companies which support software we produce, and they are all excellent. Where else can you get a bug fixed in 48 hours or less in alot of cases. Sun only says "next release, maybe". >NeXT will never have strong software as long as this deluge of free software >exists. Has a situation similar to this existed in another economic market? Why must there be a standard to compare against? I disagree with this statement, as do the people at NeXT I'm sure. UNIX has always been a place that is overflowing with generous people, willing to give away their efforts to help others, rather than hoard them like greedy little childeren, saying "Mine! All Mine! But I'll sell them to you for $$$$". That is not in the best interest of "open" computing. The NeXT has better software in some catagories than any other computer, and I don't think that will change. If you don't like free-software, you are welcome to tithe 50% of your income to the FSF in return for software, we will happily accept your money, and it is tax-deductable. If you want to pay, there are plenty of people around here who could use it. Chris -- + Chris Petrilli | Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here.