Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!NEXTASY2.EECS.WSU.EDU!dwatola
From: dwatola@NEXTASY2.EECS.WSU.EDU (David Watola)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Freeware and the collapse of capitalism
Message-ID: <9103310821.AA09756@nextasy2.eecs.wsu.edu>
Date: 31 Mar 91 08:22:25 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 67
X-Unparsable-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 0:21:42 GMT-5632:48




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

sure they can.  good economic decisions aren't based exclusively on price.
they are based on all factors that are important to the consumer--including
documentation and support.  there will always be some amount of people to 
these factors are most important, and they will spend extra money for them
(even for inferior goods).  if a company cannot compete, it is not simply
because their competitor is free.  it is because the performance/price ratio
dictates that the costly product just isn't worth that incremental cost.
how MUCH better is the nonfree software?  certainly, an expensive functioning
compiler is better than an intermittenly buggy free compiler.

>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.

ah, i know how you feel.  just the other day i called microsoft and asked for
tech support on lotus 123.  the laughter was humiliating... :)

>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?

next already has strong software.  gcc is certainly a bad product to
criticize on this point.  can anyone name any other compiler that is

a) freely distributed, with source code and documentation
b) (at least) as bug-free as most other compilers on the market
c) capable of handling (and enforcing strict rules for) strict-bsd,
   ansi, or 'old-style' C?  
d) easily ported to practically any other system?  we run gcc on decstations,
   hp9000s, and nexts here.  i personally got gcc running on our decstations
   in about 30 minutes--a few minutes to ftp the software and read the
   instructions, about 30 minutes to compile.
e) fast

if anyone can think of one, please please please name it.  i would certainly
like to play around with it for a while.
no, i think gcc is pretty much the 'last word' in c compilers.  certainly
on workstation-priced computers.  have you taken at look at the assembly code
it produces?  tough to beat when the optimizer is on.  gcc is state-of-the-art
technology.

it isn't always true that 'you get what you pay for.'  there is plenty of
exprensive but crappy software out there.  and still more expensive and
mediocre software.  just look through the catalog that next ships--
i see a couple packages in there that cost over $10k which represent just
about the amount of work a graduate student would end up doing on a project
for a semester...  earning mere peanuts as  a university lackey. the folks at
fsf idealists, and i applaud their efforts.  for those who do feel that they are
somehow getting inferior software simply because it is free, i suggest the
following:

fsf can offer two versions of gcc--one which is distributed free, and one 
that you CAN'T get unless you pay for it.  of course they would have to be
different.  the one that costs can give a different version number when you
invoke 'gcc -v'.

gosh, it feels good to ramble on and on...

"pardon me, but isn't that pin loose in your grenade?" -#86