mark@drd.UUCP (Mark Lawrence) (11/08/88)
The November '88 issue of Unix Review includes an article which reviews by comparison Oasys Designer C++, Oregon Software C++ and G++ from FSF. Categories rated were Installation, Documentation, Implementation, Environment, Error Handling, Support and Feature Set. G++ was at a disadvantage throughout because of the implicit assumptions built in to commercial product review/comparisons and *still* won with an overall grade of B compared to B- for the other two contenders. Of special mention was the volume and quality of documentation that came with G++. I chuckled at the Profile boxes wherein prices of each were compared. G++ $175 Oasys $795 - $5000 Oregon $1900 - $12000 I mean, what's to choose? Mark
shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) (11/11/88)
In article <307@drd.UUCP> mark@drd.UUCP (Mark Lawrence) writes: >I chuckled at the Profile boxes wherein prices of each were compared. > G++ $175 > Oasys $795 - $5000 > Oregon $1900 - $12000 >I mean, what's to choose? Well, I like the price, too, but your typical client does not seem to like the idea of paying for the development of software which they are (apparently) then required to give away. I know that the Copyleft has been discussed to death here, but I still can't see how to sell it to clients especially since I'm not entirely certain that agree with or even undertand it. Larry -- Signed: Larry A. Shurr (att!cbnews!shurr or osu-cis!apr!las) Clever signature, Wonderful wit, Outdo the others, Be a big hit! - Burma Shave (With apologies to the real thing. Above represents my views only.)
mike@stolaf.UUCP (Mike Haertel) (11/13/88)
In article <2060@cbnews.ATT.COM> shurr@cbnews.ATT.COM (Larry A. Shurr) writes: >In article <307@drd.UUCP> mark@drd.UUCP (Mark Lawrence) writes: >>I chuckled at the Profile boxes wherein prices of each were compared. > >> G++ $175 >> Oasys $795 - $5000 >> Oregon $1900 - $12000 > >>I mean, what's to choose? > >Well, I like the price, too, but your typical client does not seem to >like the idea of paying for the development of software which they are >(apparently) then required to give away. Object code produced by G++ does not fall under the copyleft, so you can do anything you like with it. Read the license agreement! But object code originating in GNU libraries (that is loaded with your program) IS copyrighted by FSF. So if you want to distribute proprietary binaries, you can't load them with GNU libraries. But if you write your own C++ library, or use one from the public domain or whose conditions permit you to distribute binaries containing their object code, you can certainly use G++ as your compiler. When I was at FSF this summer RMS was thinking about modifying the terms on GNU libraries. I suspect he will only do this if it turns out to be essential for the success of GNU. I don't have a great deal of sympathy with people who don't distribute source, so it doesn't really matter to me which way he decides . . . --- Mike Haertel Really mike@stolaf.UUCP, but I read mail at mike@wheaties.ai.mit.edu.
rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (11/13/88)
In article <775@stolaf.UUCP> mike@wheaties.ai.mit.edu writes: >out to be essential for the success of GNU. I don't have a great >deal of sympathy with people who don't distribute source, so it >doesn't really matter to me which way he decides . . . I don't have any problem with distributing the source code with a product. In fact, I'd rather distribute the source code. For the same price as what a binary is sold for. What I can't buy is distributing the source and binary code *for free*. There's the rub. If he just said you must distribute the source with the binary, but you can charge for the binary, I'd buy into the philosophy. -- Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2 PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2 uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/. |submission forms. jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP19200} 12013898963 "" \r ogin: jetuucp