Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/02/16/16:44:46
Andrew Jones (luminous-is AT home DOT com) wrote:
: > >And the GPL definition of "free" is definately not what the normal
: > >person thinks of free.
: >
: > So how should I say it? It's free in both senses (speech and beer).
: I'm not sure what the GPL definition of free is myself (my brain's a little
: foggy right now). Isn't it something like free for use, not free software?
What don't you read it instead of spreading misinformation.
: > >I'm not including libraries others have written (Allegro, they all
: > >scream, is successful), I'm talking about popular, well used software.
: >
: > GCC was used for a popular OS (GNU/Linux). Most of the Doom ports are
: > for DJGPP.
: GCC was *written* for a popular OS. There's a subtle difference. And the
: reason that so many people use DJGPP for these projects is that they don't
: have/don't want to spend hundreds (or thousands) on a C compiler. DJGPP is
: free. Freedom is wonderful, but doesn't make a product great by default.
: Although I do agree that GCC, and hence DJGPP *are*
: great. :)
May I know to which OS that you claim "gcc was *written*" for ?
I will follow it up to GNU, I'm sure they needed a good laugh.
BTW free software does not make it great. There are tones of badly
written {free,share,commercial}ware out there. If you ever move
out of your x86 centric world you'll find that when you need a
good compiler for PPC, MIPS, ARM, SH .... you will have to consider
gcc, not because it's free (that is irrelevant) but because it is
a good C/C++ compiler period.
: >
: > Better than any other compiler in its price range.
: As I said, freeness doesn't automatically make a good product.
Right, and it does not make it bad either. You'll find many
times free version better quality, {Free,Open,Net}BSD, GNU/Linux,
Gnu packages etc .. comes to mind of system that strive to give
quality software.
--
au revoir, alain
----
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!
- Raw text -