From: "Andrew Jones" <luminous-is AT home DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References: <7r4q4.45719$45 DOT 2400743 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <tqnias8k4o0486d553ivbr63ascnnm5arm AT 4ax DOT com> <n8wq4.48715$45 DOT 2630926 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <88emn6$ft6$1 AT gateway DOT qnx DOT com>
Subject: Re: <Damian Y>  Re: It's back, but the ...
Lines: 38
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Message-ID: <YrYq4.53294$45.2819027@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:00:56 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.42.120.18
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT home DOT net
X-Trace: news2.rdc1.on.home.com 950817656 24.42.120.18 (Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:00:56 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:00:56 PST
Organization: @Home Network Canada
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> : 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