Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/02/21/21:26:51
> : 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 wasn't spreading misinformation. I stated quite clearly that "I'm not sure
what the GPL definition of free is", and gave a reason.
How is that spreading misinformation? Unless your some weirdo twit who's going
to take my words as gospel.
> 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.
x86 centric?!?!?! This discussion has nothing to do with a specific
architecture. I was pointing a few things out about Watcom, it developed into
a discussion between Damian, myself, and a few others who pointed out my errors
(thank you). Nothing x86 centric there, thank you very much.
> 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.
Pointless. I never said that its freeness made it bad. I like DJGPP, I use
DJGPP. I have my problems with it, fine. I prefer Watcom, fine. I shared my
opinion, to which I am entitled. My opinion was that Damian was "spreading
misinformation" about Watcom. I also happen to like Linux. Free software is a
great concept, but Damian seems to use this as DJGPP's greatest selling point.
AndrewJ
- Raw text -