Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!hc!lll-winken!uunet!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Aghast at the Quality? (was: Microport Buyout )
Message-ID: <3863@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 13 Apr 89 21:31:46 GMT
References: <237@egsner.UUCP> <4178@stiatl.UUCP> <10317@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <623@eecea.eece.ksu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 25

In article <623@eecea.eece.ksu.edu>, terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) writes:
> In article <11307@well.UUCP> tneff@well.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
> >Finally, why should we expect GNU to get
> >"right" whatever it is that all these implementations got "wrong"?

> Well gcc produces the fastest code of any C compiler...

Biggest C compiler, too. The rest of their products are also code hogs...

> With a track record like [that] I expect their beta release will be higher
> quality than some other vendor's finished product.  

Depends on what you mean by 'higher quality'. If it won't at least run with
a mere ("mere"!) 2 Megabytes of RAM, which is damned likely considering how
much RAM gcc requires, I'd hardly call it an improvement.

Remember when small was beautiful? There's no reason a good UNIX with all the
functionality of OS/2 and then some shouldn't run on a standard AT, or at least
a 1 Meg 386 box. I chose 2 Meg above because I've run System V on a 386 in that
little ("little"!) RAM.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.