From: alain AT qnx DOT com (Alain Magloire) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Re: It's back, but the ... Date: 17 Feb 2000 23:03:20 GMT Organization: QNX Software Systems Lines: 61 Message-ID: <88huno$dnn$1@gateway.qnx.com> References: <7r4q4.45719$45 DOT 2400743 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <88emn6$ft6$1 AT gateway DOT qnx DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: qnx.com X-Trace: gateway.qnx.com 950828600 14071 209.226.137.1 (17 Feb 2000 23:03:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet AT qnx DOT com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Feb 2000 23:03:20 GMT X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Andrew Jones (luminous-is AT home DOT com) wrote: : > : 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. Please spare me the personnal insults, if you have arguments to make against the GPL speak up, nobody is forcing you to agree or use it. But you'll be corrected if you say fallacies and again a better forum for this is gnu.misc.discuss. : > 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. "between Damian, myself ...", Please ! You posted something on usenet a public forum. This is Usenet. Maybe the "x86 centric" was a bit harsh. I wanted to point out the versatility of the compiler and it can procudes effective code for, for example SPARC machines. For a long time gcc did not make wave much in the x86 world because there was not much Un*x on x86. People were using Sun, HP, IBM/AIX etc ... This were gcc was very strong. Of course things change with the *BSD (on x86) and Linux etc ... Now gcc-2.95.x is not something you can wave out if you are looking for a good compiler. : > 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. Fair enough. Please drop the personnal attitude, I'm not attacking you *as* a person, you may be a fine lad. -- au revoir, alain ---- Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!