ejp@lsw.UUCP (Eric Porter) (08/15/90)
I have just recently received an IBM RS6000 and am feeling a bit lost
without emacs.
I have the sources for GNU Emacs (18.54.7) and am having trouble compiling
them on the RS6000.
Do patches exist for GNU Emacs on the RS6000, and if so how can I get them?
Any information/help will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Eric Porter
-----
Eric Porter: uunet!hadron!lsw!ejpnelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (08/17/90)
In article <120@lsw.UUCP> ejp@lsw.UUCP (Eric Porter) writes:
I have just recently received an IBM RS6000 and am feeling a bit lost
without emacs.
Please tell this to IBM. They were, at one time, distributing GNU Emacs
with the RS6000, but ceased to do so for some trifling legal reason.
As we all know, legal reasons can be affected by economic reasons.
Threaten not to buy any more unless they come with GNU Emacs.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
We won the cold war. The Russians spent trillions defending their stuff,
then they found that they didn't have any stuff. Will we avoid the same trap?grund@pyrite.som.cwru.edu (Victor Grund) (08/18/90)
In article <NELSON.90Aug16224848@image.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun (Russ Nelson) writes: > I have just recently received an IBM RS6000 and am feeling a bit lost > without emacs. > >Please tell this to IBM. They were, at one time, distributing GNU Emacs >with the RS6000, but ceased to do so for some trifling legal reason. >As we all know, legal reasons can be affected by economic reasons. >Threaten not to buy any more unless they come with GNU Emacs. As I understand it, we were threatened with a lawsuit by another company. I'm not sure who did the threatening, so I will not risk flames by guessing. IBM's reason for dropping Gnu EMACS *was* economic, through threat of legal action. Or that's what we hear in Cleveland, anyways. Victor Grund IBM Cleveland
geoff@edm.uucp (Geoff Coleman) (08/20/90)
From article <1990Aug18.032057.22131@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, by grund@pyrite.som.cwru.edu (Victor Grund): > In article <NELSON.90Aug16224848@image.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun (Russ Nelson) writes: >> I have just recently received an IBM RS6000 and am feeling a bit lost >> without emacs. >> > > IBM's reason for dropping Gnu EMACS *was* economic, through threat of > legal action. > Yes but what about those of us that received it with the 9005 load of the OS. What if anything did IBM change in there version other than s- and m- files. I do know that the 9005 version compiles under the golden code just fine. Is it all right for us to have this code? Is it all right for us to redistribute this code? Geoff Coleman Unexsys Systems
ron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan) (08/20/90)
In article <NELSON.90Aug16224848@image.clarkson.edu>, nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: In article <120@lsw.UUCP> ejp@lsw.UUCP (Eric Porter) writes: Eric> I have just recently received an IBM RS6000 and am feeling a Eric> bit lost without emacs. russ> Please tell this to IBM. They were, at one time, distributing GNU Emacs russ> with the RS6000, but ceased to do so for some trifling legal reason. russ> As we all know, legal reasons can be affected by economic reasons. russ> Threaten not to buy any more unless they come with GNU Emacs. I'd hardly call being threatened with a law suit a trifling reason. IBM is always a little skittish when litigation is threatened just like any other big comanies. Anyway, how many other manufacturers distribute GNU EMACS? Afterall, the patches for AIX 3.1 have already been made available for anonymous ftp (just read comp.unix.aix for details). Ron +-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+ +------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+ + Ronald S. Woan @cs.utexas.edu:ibmchs!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron + + alternatives woan@peyote.cactus.org or woan@soda.berkeley.edu +
grund@pyrite.som.cwru.edu (Victor Grund) (08/21/90)
In article <1990Aug20.053814.2978@edm.uucp>, geoff@edm (Geoff Coleman) writes: > Yes but what about those of us that received it with the 9005 >load of the OS. What if anything did IBM change in there version other than >s- and m- files. I do know that the 9005 version compiles under the golden >code just fine. Is it all right for us to have this code? Is it all right for >us to redistribute this code? Sure it's all right for you to have this code. Just follow the legal agreements posted all over the source. Everything is kosher as long as IBM no longer distributes it, as I understand it. Since anybody can ftp the s- and m- files that you already have, I don't see why you can't redistribute them. But don't quote me. :-) I have received one email request to obtain the specifics of the lawsuit that was threatened. If the net is dying to know, I will discover them. Yes, the 9005 emacs compiles fine under the gold code for me also. Nothing was changed other than s- and m- files, as far as I can tell. Victor Grund IBM Cleveland
ejp@lsw.UUCP (Eric Porter) (08/22/90)
In article <3205@awdprime.UUCP>, ron@woan.austin.ibm.com (Ronald S. Woan) writes: > Afterall, the patches for AIX 3.1 have already > been made available for anonymous ftp (just read comp.unix.aix for > details). > Unfortunately, I do not have ftp access and have just started receiving "comp.unix.aix" :-(. Could someone please forward me the above mentioned patches, or point me to someone with anonymous "uucp" who carries the patch. Thanks much, Eric ----- Eric Porter uunet!hadron!lsw!ejp