konczal@MAIL-GW.NCSL.NIST.GOV (Joseph C. Konczal) (07/10/90)
|People who advocate free software have NO idea how critical |quality is! I go out of my way to use some free software, like GNU Emacs and GNU CC, because of the quailty. The release notes for X11R4 recommend using GNU CC to commpile X on a VAX or 680x0 processor for up to a factor of 2 improvement in performance. GNU CC compiles ANSI C--Sun CC does not. (I am not against Sun in particular--I think thiers is probably some of the better commercial grade software.) If I find a bug in free GNU software, I have the source, I can try to fix it if necessary, if someone else hasn't already. When I find a bug in Sun software, I call Sun (I payed for software suport--actually the taxpayers did) and they tell me that they know about the bug and it will be fixed in the next release in a few months or a year. You get what you pay for. I bought some composted manure for my garden, I payed for manure and that's what I got. --Joe Konczal Caveat emptor!
datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) (07/11/90)
> |People who advocate free software have NO idea how critical > |quality is! They do know, but they sometimes have a misguided idea of what "quality" actually is. >I go out of my way to use some free software, like GNU Emacs and GNU >CC, because of the quailty. The "quality" of those two is one reason why I go out of my way to *not* use them. GNUmacs is huge beyond belief, and this dump/undump stuff and the bizarre entry point seem to preclude the use of shared libraries to help reduce it to a normal size. There's code (in 18.55) that senselessly no-ops the -fg and -bg switches if your X server isn't >2 bits deep, and the makefile installs an unstripped, -g compiled binary with 777 protections. I have a hard time being impressed with this "quality". > The release notes for X11R4 recommend >using GNU CC to commpile X on a VAX or 680x0 processor for up to a >factor of 2 improvement in performance. I've seen so many people have problems with using gcc to build things, *especially X*, that I won't use it at all. If it worked reliably, I might feel differently. >probably some of the better commercial grade software.) If I find a >bug in free GNU software, I have the source, I can try to fix it if >necessary, if someone else hasn't already. True enough. > When I find a bug in Sun >software, I call Sun (I payed for software suport--actually the >taxpayers did) and they tell me that they know about the bug and it >will be fixed in the next release in a few months or a year. You've actually had better luck with that than I have -- I've had problems even getting them to acknowledge problems. >You get what you pay for. I bought some composted manure for my >garden, I payed for manure and that's what I got. All too often, you get what you pay for, and all too often you don't. I think that freely-redistributable software is great, and I use a lot of it. X11 and company are great achievments, for example. I am turned off by the gnu attitude, though, which is the primary reason why I avoid their products. --