shite@unf7.UUCP (Stephen Hite) (12/09/90)
Yes, I ftp'ed MPW GCC from apple.com (funny, I checked today and it's
gone) and yes, I have the 3.1 MPW C bundle as well as MPW C++. Apple
development tools are fine products. However, I've decided to shelve MPW
GCC out of respect for RMS's wishes. It's the very least I can do because
I don't *need* it to be productive on the Mac.
I decided not to support RMS by getting rid of my SE/30, though. This is
too radical an idea (for me) and won't change anyone's mind about anything.
It's just going to deprive me of a development and learning tool. This
type of thought reminds me of people who burn books or throw albums away
because someone had them convinced that it would change things. I know,
RMS doesn't advocate destruction, but I *luv* my Mac and my 386 clone running
Unix and that transcends politics or anyone elses ideals. ;-).
I can understand a programmer porting GCC to the Mac with the good
intention of wanting to create a free standalone development tool
(i.e. free headers, libs, etc). However, it makes no sense for Apple
developers to do it and include a "readme" that discourages Apple developers
to use it on their own projects. They (Apple) include another "readme"
that freely admits that GCC is a "better" C compiler than MPW C. About
the only thing MPW C "won" was the compilation speed test. Are you guys
*happy* with your jobs at Apple, if you get my drift. It should be no
surprise to anyone that yours is faster and GCC is more robust
(hint: RMS didn't get his recent "genious grant" for his politics or hairstyle)
:-) :-)
The Apple developers involved with the GCC port have proven that they
are great systems programmers / integrators. Unfortunately, they have
also demonstrated that they do not realize the implications (internal
and external) of what they do. That is, internally, if higher level
management learns that its own employees are distributing a file that
recommends to others to boycott Apple (i.e. gcc-info file) then someone's
butt is going to get chewed. Externally, as put so succinctly by
Brian Johnson of the University of Maryland, "It's like beating Ghandi
with his own stick because you can".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Hite Today's Cheer is:
shite@sinkhole.unf.edu "Copy to the Left...Copy to the Right..."
"LNF...LNF...FIGHT, FIGHT FIGHT!" -meshebs@Apple.COM (Stan Shebs) (12/12/90)
Just a couple reactions: In article <333@unf7.UUCP> shite@unf7.UUCP (Stephen Hite) writes: > > Yes, I ftp'ed MPW GCC from apple.com (funny, I checked today and it's >gone) A screwup on my part - the files have been restored. >[...] I've decided to shelve MPW GCC out of respect for RMS's wishes. [...] > > I decided not to support RMS by getting rid of my SE/30, though. [...] So basically you're supporting RMS as long as it's not too inconvenient. There are people who really need MPW GCC to do their work, for whom there's more at stake than convenience. > I can understand a programmer porting GCC to the Mac with the good >intention of wanting to create a free standalone development tool >(i.e. free headers, libs, etc). However, it makes no sense for Apple >developers to do it and include a "readme" that discourages Apple developers >to use it on their own projects. Oops, that file wasn't supposed to be distributed. It shouldn't be too surprising tho - RMS is enough of a loose cannon and the law is vague enough that I would be most uncomfortable betting the whole company on his goodwill. Compilers are used for a lot of things besides compiling product code. I did MPW GCC as part of our ongoing research; no other compiler that I know of can touch GCC for quality, portability, and retargeting support. >They (Apple) include another "readme" >that freely admits that GCC is a "better" C compiler than MPW C. About >the only thing MPW C "won" was the compilation speed test. You're misinterpreting the intent of the statistics. I was supplying some information that potential users could study to decide whether it was worth their while to try MPW GCC. In fact, for the kind of work I do, compilation speed is more important than code quality, so MPW C or THINK C is better for me. (Actually, I really prefer to hack Lisp!) > The Apple developers involved with the GCC port have proven that they >are great systems programmers / integrators. Unfortunately, they have >also demonstrated that they do not realize the implications (internal >and external) of what they do. *I'm* the "Apple developers" you're referring to and I can assure you that I've spent a great deal of time considering all the implications - I've been hacking on GCC for a year and a half now, and have used GNU software for many years. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the ideals of the GNU project and have produced much "free" software (to my wife's horror, BTW). On the other hand, I don't think RMS is Gandhi, and I don't think that the boycott was a particularly clever idea (Apple's support isn't important to GNU, and GNU's support isn't important to Apple, so leverage is minimal). In fact, demonstrating the value of free software is much more effective in the giant anarchy that is Apple Computer. Compare strategies from the executives' point of view - "We're supposed to drop a lawsuit that's protecting our company because a bunch of competitor-supported Unixoids aren't buying Macs?" vs "We're more profitable and doing better research because we're using and distributing free software?" 'Nuff said. You're free to make your own decision. Stan Shebs Apple ATG System Software shebs@apple.com
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (12/12/90)
For the benefit of those of us who jumped in late, would someone mind translating the following acronyms / initials: FSF == "Free Software Foundation" ??? GNU == ??? RMS == ...... initials ....... ??? The issues are clearly of general interest; it is difficult to follow the thread without the specifics. Forgive me if they are obvious. Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu)
dmmg1176@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David M Marcovitz) (12/12/90)
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: >For the benefit of those of us who jumped in late, would someone >mind translating the following acronyms / initials: >FSF == "Free Software Foundation" ??? >GNU == ??? >RMS == ...... initials ....... ??? >The issues are clearly of general interest; it is difficult to follow >the thread without the specifics. Forgive me if they are obvious. >Bill (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu) I believe FSF is correct. GNU stands for "GNU is Not Un*x." RMS is Richard M. Stallman, former research scientist at the MIT AI Lab. He is the principal person responsible for The One True Emacs (written in TECO for Tops-10), GNU-Emacs, GNU, etc. I haven't been following this string so could someone fill me in on the meaning of the title of this note (something about not using the MPW GCC if you respect RMS's wishes). -- David M. Marcovitz | internet: marcovitz@uiuc.edu Computer-based Education Research Lab | dmmg1176@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu University of Illinois | novanet: marco / cca / cerl
jxf@altair.cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain) (12/12/90)
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: >For the benefit of those of us who jumped in late, would someone >mind translating the following acronyms / initials: >FSF == "Free Software Foundation" ??? >GNU == ??? >RMS == ...... initials ....... ??? FSF == Free Software Foundation (as you already guessed) GNU == Gnu's Not Unix RMS == Richard M. Stallman >The issues are clearly of general interest; it is difficult to follow >the thread without the specifics. Forgive me if they are obvious. Not (very) obvious unless, you read the gnu newsgroups (or have other methods of becoming informed of the activities of the FSF). If you'd like, I'd be happy to mail you the "Frequently Asked Questions" for the gnu newsgroups which may address other questions that you may have. --Jerry -- Jerry Frain -- Systems Programmer Kansas State University Department of Computing & Info Sciences Internet : jxf@cis.ksu.edu Manhattan, Kansas UUCP : ...!rutgers!ksuvax1!jxf
daven@svc.portal.com (12/13/90)
In article <11493@goofy.Apple.COM> shebs@Apple.COM (Stan Shebs) writes: >Just a couple reactions: <<< lot's of words removed >>> >'Nuff said. You're free to make your own decision. Touche! Well said Stan. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Newman | daven@svc.portal.com | AppleLink: D0025 Sofware Ventures Corp. | AOL: MicroPhone | CIS: 76004,2161 Berkeley, CA 94705 | WELL: tinman@well.sf.ca.us | (415) 644-3232
daven@svc.portal.com (12/13/90)
In article <38833@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: > >For the benefit of those of us who jumped in late, would someone >mind translating the following acronyms / initials: > >FSF == "Free Software Foundation" ??? >GNU == ??? >RMS == ...... initials ....... ??? > >The issues are clearly of general interest; it is difficult to follow >the thread without the specifics. Forgive me if they are obvious. Okay, here's how I understand these acronyms and initials... FSF == "Free Software Foundation" GNU == "GNU is Not UNIX" <== a recursive acronym I'm told RMS == "Richard M. Stallman" -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Newman | daven@svc.portal.com | AppleLink: D0025 Sofware Ventures Corp. | AOL: MicroPhone | CIS: 76004,2161 Berkeley, CA 94705 | WELL: tinman@well.sf.ca.us | (415) 644-3232
Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Lawson English) (12/13/90)
Stephen Hite writes in a message to All
SH> It should be no surprise to anyone that yours is faster and GCC
SH> is more robust (hint: RMS didn't get his recent "genious grant"
SH> for his politics or hairstyle) :-) :-
SH> That is, internally, if higher level management learns that its
SH> own employees are distributing a file that recommends to others
SH> to boycott Apple (i.e. gcc-info file) then someone's butt is
SH> going to get chewed.
Who IS this RMS person? And why does he hate Apple? It sounds like someone that
believes that the GUI that Apple created should be public domain. Sorry Jack,
Apple spent oddles of man-years and gazillions of dollars developing the whole
thing. The courts (in my understanding) said that Apple had a prior agreement
with MicroSoft to allow them use of the GUI, not that GUI's weren't protectable.
Rant, rant, rave, etc.
Lawson (former Apple stockholder)
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!300!15.88!Lawson.English
Internet: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.orgtjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) (12/17/90)
In article <32371.27684118@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Lawson English) writes: >Who IS this RMS person? And why does he hate Apple? It sounds like someone that >believes that the GUI that Apple created should be public domain. RMS = Richard M. Stallman. (Actually = rms as that's what he likes to be called.) What RMS actually wants is for companies like Apple to stop harrassing people in the courts with look and feel lawsuits. By all means let Apple sell their GUI with their computer but don't let them stop other people developing theirs. >Sorry Jack, >Apple spent oddles of man-years and gazillions of dollars developing the whole >thing. Sorry Lawson, but this just isn't true. Ever heard of PARC? That's where apple GUI was born. Xerox developed the whole desktop concept in computing. Apple brought it to the real world. Very few things in life are the product of one person or company. We all build on the work of others. If we stop co-operating then we all lose big. Tony -- Tony Cunningham, Edinburgh University Computing Service. tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk If a man among you got no sin upon his hand Let him cast a stone at me for playing in the band.
Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Lawson English) (12/19/90)
A J Cunningham writes in a message to All >Sorry Jack, >Apple spent oddles of man-years and gazillions of dollars developing the whole >thing. AJC> Sorry Lawson, but this just isn't true. Ever heard of PARC? AJC> That's where apple GUI was born. Xerox developed the whole desktop AJC> concept in computing. Apple brought it to the real world. Very AJC> few things in life are the product of one person or company. AJC> We all build on the work of others. If we stop co-operating then AJC> we all lose big If you have ever worked on a SmallTalk-80 system, you would never make such a silly claim. Of COURSE Apple built on the work at PARC, but the implementation of windows and events is different from the primitives up. Consider this: the first SmallTalk-80 on the Mac had to be rewritten to handle larger screens (I know, I watched it break on an accellerator/big screen board for the Plus). It seems that the way SmallTalk-80 and the way the Mac handle graphics are so different, that the good SmallTalk-80 people had to implement a BitBlt from the ground up, using none of the Apple QuickDraw ROM to do it. If Apple had copied a substantial portion of the Xerox GUI directly, wouldn't you expect them to be compatable? Lawson -- Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!300!15.88!Lawson.English Internet: Lawson.English@p88.f15.n300.z1.fidonet.org
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (12/21/90)
In article <7606@castle.ed.ac.uk> tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: > >Sorry Jack, > >Apple spent oddles of man-years and gazillions of dollars developing the whole > >thing. > > Sorry Lawson, but this just isn't true. Ever heard of PARC? > That's where apple GUI was born. Xerox developed the whole desktop > concept in computing. Apple brought it to the real world. It might be more accurate to say that the interface was in some way conceived at PARC. PARC had overlapping windows and a mouse, but Apple did some specific things: pull-down menus, the notion of double-clicking on iconic representations of something to "open" them, and so forth. I've heard the "PARC invented it and Apple sold it" argument many times before--generally from people who've never used a Xerox Star, Alto, Dorado, Dolphin, or any of the systems in question other than a Macintosh. __________________________________________________________________________ Paul Snively Macintosh Developer Technical Support Apple Computer, Inc. chewy@apple.com Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that I believe what they believe, or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________
amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) (12/22/90)
In article <11603@goofy.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes: >I've heard the "PARC invented it and Apple sold it" argument many times >before--generally from people who've never used a Xerox Star, Alto, >Dorado, Dolphin, or any of the systems in question other than a Macintosh. Indeed. Having used a number of Xerox machines (including the Alto), I'd say that Apple built on work done at Xerox. Claiming that the Mac interface was invented at PARC, however, is a little like saying that the Mac hardware was invented at Motorola and MMI because it uses a 68000 and PALs, or that the Dodge Omni was invented by Volkswagen because it looked kinda like a VW Rabbit... -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light." --Robert Anton Wilson