rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar30.063733.27117@news.cs.indiana.edu> jashley@loanshark.cs.indiana.edu (J. Michael Ashley) writes: >In article <1446@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: >>One of the reasons >>there aren't "hundreds of add-ons" for the NeXT is that THEY'RE >>JUST NOT NEEDED. And if someone wants to reinvent a wheel for >>profit, they have to do a better job than what's already there >>"for free." > >It's bad, because GNU cc is *not* the last word in C compilers. I am >positive that several or even lots of people out there are capable of >writing a C compiler that will smoke gcc, but they're never going to write >it, because they can't compete against a free product. Why should the says who? If something is good enough, people will buy it. Also, if NeXT writes it's own compiler or improves the GNU stuff does not matter. In either case a basic C-compiler will be included in the system. >sell their compiler in the first place? Because they have to eat, that's >why. GNU gets grants from corporations and the government; not everybody >is that lucky. Getting grants here is the same as being paid. If GNU stuff weren't any good, then there would be no interest. >Furthermore, free software tends to be poorly supported, and I would >lose sleep at night if I knew my hypothetical company was depending on >unsupported software. Yeah, I know there are businesses that exist to >support GNU software, but that doesn't invalidate my previous point, and >at any rate, they only support GNU software. What do you expect? Did you ever see Microsoft support Lotus software or vice versa? As long as you CAN make a support contract with someone, it is your problem if you do so. You always get what you pay for, but sometimes you get more. Also, the fact that NeXT uses GNU software does not mean it is not supported. So far the support I got from NeXT was far superior to what I got from any other comparable company (that does not mean it could not sometimes be even better, but that's not the point) >NeXT will never have strong software as long as this deluge of free software >exists. Has a situation similar to this existed in another economic market? This statement lacks any basis. The software that is around is pretty high quality and only keeps those away that can't do any better. Given the time NeXT is on the market there is quite a reasonable number of programs out there. The only way the free software can hurt NeXT is that people like you do not like quality but quantity. The nicest example for this was back in the early 80s when IBM came out with the PC in Europe. (I have to mention that IBM introduced the PC in Europe quite a bit later than in the States). So a year before IBM sold the PC, there was another computer Sirius on the market (nowadays they are called Victor and produce only PC clones). This Sirius had a 400x800 16 gray scale graphics display, 8-bit digital sound, volume and brightness control from the keyboard, 1.2 MB disk drives and a completely glare-free monitor. The case of this thing was dark gray (maybe it was even black). If you think that sounds like a NeXT, then you are right, this computer (although 8088 based) was still quite advanced for it's time. By the time IBM put it's 64KB, 80x25 text 320KB Floppy machine on the market for the same price as the Sirius, the latter had a big advantage over the IBM: Sirius had close to 2000 software packages and was a clear market leader. Now guess why now IBM is the standart? Well the PC had nothing, you just could not work with it. After a short while everyone produced add-ons: Graphics adaptors that were still inferior to the Sirius, etc. The result was that in a typical computer magazine there was one add for the Sirius, one for the IBM and about 50 for products that turned the PC into a usable machine. Thats why people like you thought: OH, IBM MUST BE SOOO GREAT! and they went on and bought it. And the rest of the world still suffers... Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (03/31/91)
J. Michael Ashley writes: >It's bad, because GNU cc is *not* the last word in C compilers. I am >positive that several or even lots of people out there are capable of >writing a C compiler that will smoke gcc, but they're never going to write >it, because they can't compete against a free product. Why should the Don't be so sure of what other people are capable of... I feel, as the one writing the GNU C Reference Manual that I must interject a little reality into these statements. At the moment, the GNU C compiler is most likely the best there is, and it is still classfied by us as Beta software. We are approaching v2.0, which will include C, C++ and Objective-C (Thanks NeXT!). In my experiences, the GNU Compilers generate better code than ANY compiler, including the one Sun is selling for some $4000. In fact, I know for a fact that Sun, IBM and DEC all use GNU compilers internally. Data General stated that they shipped GNU C instead of pcc because the found the code `substantially superior' in quality. We work damn hard on the GNU compiler, and some of the best programmers in the world work on compiler, including RMS. >sell their compiler in the first place? Because they have to eat, that's >why. GNU gets grants from corporations and the government; not everybody >is that lucky. Not everybody is willing to donate everything they create to the world to benefit society, rather than a single individual. We get grants because the corporations see us as a worthy cause, not to mention half of them use our software. >Furthermore, free software tends to be poorly supported, and I would >lose sleep at night if I knew my hypothetical company was depending on >unsupported software. Yeah, I know there are businesses that exist to >support GNU software, but that doesn't invalidate my previous point, and >at any rate, they only support GNU software. Do you have a problem with companies that specialise in specific software? I have some experience with some of the companies which support software we produce, and they are all excellent. Where else can you get a bug fixed in 48 hours or less in alot of cases. Sun only says "next release, maybe". >NeXT will never have strong software as long as this deluge of free software >exists. Has a situation similar to this existed in another economic market? Why must there be a standard to compare against? I disagree with this statement, as do the people at NeXT I'm sure. UNIX has always been a place that is overflowing with generous people, willing to give away their efforts to help others, rather than hoard them like greedy little childeren, saying "Mine! All Mine! But I'll sell them to you for $$$$". That is not in the best interest of "open" computing. The NeXT has better software in some catagories than any other computer, and I don't think that will change. If you don't like free-software, you are welcome to tithe 50% of your income to the FSF in return for software, we will happily accept your money, and it is tax-deductable. If you want to pay, there are plenty of people around here who could use it. Chris -- + Chris Petrilli | Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here.
jashley@loanshark.cs.indiana.edu (J. Michael Ashley) (03/31/91)
In article <70367@brunix.UUCP> you write: >In article <1991Mar30.063733.27117@news.cs.indiana.edu> jashley@loanshark.cs.indiana.edu (J. Michael Ashley) writes: >>It's bad, because GNU cc is *not* the last word in C compilers. I am >>positive that several or even lots of people out there are capable of >>writing a C compiler that will smoke gcc, but they're never going to write >>it, because they can't compete against a free product. Why should the > >says who? If something is good enough, people will buy it. Seriously, would you? Several people have tried to sell C compilers for Unix platforms in the past, and they were supposedly pretty good compilers. Trouble is, they couldn't compete against freewhare. This is a hypothesis; see the end of the note. >>sell their compiler in the first place? Because they have to eat, that's >>why. GNU gets grants from corporations and the government; not everybody >>is that lucky. > >Getting grants here is the same as being paid. If GNU stuff weren't >any good, then there would be no interest. I'm not questioning the fact that GNU software is good. My point is that somebody can *always* do *better*. >>NeXT will never have strong software as long as this deluge of free software >>exists. Has a situation similar to this existed in another economic market? > >This statement lacks any basis. You're right. I should have said "I conjuecture that NeXT..." > The software that is around is pretty high quality Well, I disagree with that, but "high quality" is a pretty subjective thing. >Given >the time NeXT is on the market there is quite a reasonable number of >programs out there. Really? I still can't find a decent TeX previewer. I hardly think Emacs is a great text editor. Other people must share the same sentiments I do, and like me, they don't have time to remedy the situation. We'd rather leave it to the people who are really good at it. >The only way the free software can hurt NeXT is that people like you >do not like quality but quantity. Relax, champ. I like quality a lot. But I think diversity is a good thing, too. How can diversity be bad? >[Story about this Sirius computer deleted] >Thats why people like you thought: OH, IBM MUST BE SOOO GREAT! >and they went on and bought it. Oh, now I'm an IBM lover and a NeXT basher. Wow, I thought it was ok to be critical on this board... :-) Seriously, I can't believe your statement that millions of people bought an IBM based solely on the diversity of add-ons. You might be right: people bought a piece of crap because it had lots of add-ons. But why should I think add-ons would hurt NeXT? Then we'd have a great computer *and* lots of spiffy software and hardware extras. You haven't convinved me that diversity is bad. "Freewhare hurts diversity" is a conjecture. "Freewhare doesn't hurt diversity" is a conjecture. The issues are really complicated, and I don't think either "side" is entirely right, including my own side. I just want good software and was offering my opinion on why there is not a lot of good software out there. This was a mistake, and that's why I cancelled the original posting. This issue about freewhare just gets too emotional. I care about the fate of NeXT probably a lot more than you think. Peace. Mike "Boy, I hope those dogs eat that cat." -- Tula, age 3
madler@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Mark Adler) (04/01/91)
Chris Petrilli, perhaps not the most objective source writes: >> At the moment, the GNU C compiler is >> most likely the best there is and >> In my experiences, the GNU Compilers >> generate better code than ANY compiler, including the one Sun is >> selling for some $4000. I have no relation whatsoever to the GNU project, but I have to say he's absolutely right. The code the Sun compiler produces is crapola, compared to what gcc does on the Sun (Sparc). The code looks much better (that is, much more like what I might write by hand), and in fact runs consistently faster. In fact, I haven't seen any compiler that makes better code than gcc, though I have heard legends of the BLISS compiler of yesteryear ... Mark Adler madler@pooh.caltech.edu
davis@ee.rochester.edu (Al Davis) (04/01/91)
An example of where free software has not hurt the market is EE CAD software. There is a lot of nearly free (pay for copying) stuff available form universities. Example: Berkeley: SPICE, MAGIC, etc. There are other sources in addition to Berkeley. Yet, the CAD inductry is thriving. Many of the products are enhancements to the PD stuff. There are two types of users: commercial and non-commercial. Commercial users will pay for the best because it saves enough time to be worth it, and may help produce a better product for them. They need support and will pay for it. It is cheap compared to the time it saves. Non-commercial users may want it cheap. Many will use the free stuff, but would not buy it. If you are an electronics hobbiest would you pay $20,000 for a simulator? Commercial users will.
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (04/01/91)
In article <1991Mar31.084853.18232@news.cs.indiana.edu>, jashley@loanshark.cs.indiana.edu (J. Michael Ashley) writes: > In article <70367@brunix.UUCP> you write: >>In article <1991Mar30.063733.27117@news.cs.indiana.edu> jashley@loanshark.cs.indiana.edu (J. Michael Ashley) writes: >>>It's bad, because GNU cc is *not* the last word in C compilers. I am >>>positive that several or even lots of people out there are capable of >>>writing a C compiler that will smoke gcc, but they're never going to write >>>it, because they can't compete against a free product. Why should the >> Somehow your original post didn't make it to our site (yet?) and I don't know whether the excerpts properly convey your point so please excuse me if my responses are inappropriate. However, the thrust of your point seems to be that free software is an ultimate damper on the development of better "not-free" software that would have to compete with the free software. Perhaps in some cases this is true but I would point out that we can all take heart from the fact that a number of other machines that have a large base of freeware seem to be doing well (Macs, PeeCees, Amigas) and UNIX in general has a large body of freeware that seems to be a major attraction to many of us. So freeware in general is not necessarily a problem...but, on the other hand, I suspect you CAN point out some specific instances where existence of a free package inhibited development of a better "not-free" alternative. But that probably did not adversely affect the prosperity of the platform on which the freeware ran. [...material deleted...] > I'm not questioning the fact that GNU software is good. My point is that > somebody can *always* do *better*. > Your choice of GNU software as an illustration is probably unfortunate. Their reputation is the best and I suspect you will get a lot of responses to that effect. More to the point, it's not clear that "somebody can always do better". Very few companies will turn a first class programmer loose to do his/her own thing. You usually do your boss' own thing...or a committee's own thing(s). So SOME free software is a labor of love offered as a creative expression of how someone feels something should be done. It's hard to top that even for money. The issue of support was also mentioned, I believe, in your original post (at least I've seen it attributed in some other posted responses). This would also be unfortunate to associate with the NeXT compiler which IS supported by NeXT. The fact that it is based on the GNU compiler is irrelevant to the issue of support...and I have no reason to believe the support is inferior to what we are accustomed to in the rest of the commercial world. In fact, the fact that something is a commercial product is no guarantee that it will be supported as I have discovered first hand. Having read comp.sys.next for a while, I see no reason to be concerned about the quality of support for the compiler for the NeXT. c.f.waltrip Internet: <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own.
aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno) (04/01/91)
jashley@loanshark.cs.indiana.edu (J. Michael Ashley) writes: > In article <1446@toaster.SFSU.EDU> eps@cs.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) writes: > >One of the reasons > >there aren't "hundreds of add-ons" for the NeXT is that THEY'RE > >JUST NOT NEEDED. And if someone wants to reinvent a wheel for > >profit, they have to do a better job than what's already there > >"for free." > > I think I'd kind of like hundreds of add-ons for the NeXT, because they > *are* needed. Competition is good; competition is great. Look in the > Unix world. There are exactly two compilers. The cc compiler everybody's > machine comes with and GNU cc. On the NeXT, those two compilers happen > to be the same, but that isn't true on Suns, for example. This is bad. > > It's bad, because GNU cc is *not* the last word in C compilers. I am > positive that several or even lots of people out there are capable of > writing a C compiler that will smoke gcc, but they're never going to write > it, because they can't compete against a free product. Why should the > sell their compiler in the first place? Because they have to eat, that's > why. GNU gets grants from corporations and the government; not everybody > is that lucky. > > Furthermore, free software tends to be poorly supported, and I would > lose sleep at night if I knew my hypothetical company was depending on > unsupported software. Yeah, I know there are businesses that exist to > support GNU software, but that doesn't invalidate my previous point, and > at any rate, they only support GNU software. > > NeXT will never have strong software as long as this deluge of free software > exists. Has a situation similar to this existed in another economic market? Well, there are *some* of us that cannot afford $2000 for a bleedin' C compiler! If it were not for the "deluge of free software", I would still be stuck with my Mac. For businesses, great, let them pay megabucks for certified-correct, super-supported power software. For me, I'm happy to use PD stuff. I would also like to take this opportunity to bless and kiss the feet of Gnu for their compiler and Lighthouse Design for selling a very nice and useful application (Diagram) for only $25. There are lots of others that are in the same boat. Also, I might get flamed for this, but I frankly like to see freeware / shareware smoke the pants of some commercial stuff, because for one, it keeps commercial programmers on their toes (i.e. they can't get away with distributing some of the junk that I have seen in the past), and because I am at heart a bit of an anarchist. Although some of the NeXT stuff isn't bad, there is also the matter of gross overpricing on some stuff - you can't tell me that WordPerfect for the PC cost nearly as much as the profits they are making - millions of copies, at hundreds of dollars each. I would *love* to see WordPerfect undermined by something better and cheaper for persons that don't really care about support, etc. Pardon my rambling. Anyway, some of us are eternally grateful for free/cheap software, and if you want to begrudge us this benefit, you'll have fewer people using a NeXT. Flames welcome, as soon as I get my asbestos suit on... : ) --- Anthony Berno (aberno@questor.wimsey.bc.ca) The QUESTOR Project: Free Public Access to Usenet & Internet in Vancouver, BC, Canada, at +1 604 681 0670.
rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Mar31.084853.18232@news.cs.indiana.edu> jashley@loanshark.cs.indiana.edu (J. Michael Ashley) writes: >I'm not questioning the fact that GNU software is good. My point is that >somebody can *always* do *better*. No doubt, it's just a question of marginal costs. If something is only marginally better than something is for free then the free things will be on more peoples preference curves. If the difference in quality is big enough, it does not matter if something is free, they will buy the better stuff. The important economic keyword here is opportunity cost. >> The software that is around is pretty high quality > >Well, I disagree with that, but "high quality" is a pretty subjective thing. > >>Given >>the time NeXT is on the market there is quite a reasonable number of >>programs out there. > >Really? I still can't find a decent TeX previewer. I hardly think Emacs >is a great text editor. Other people must share the same sentiments I do, >and like me, they don't have time to remedy the situation. We'd rather >leave it to the people who are really good at it. Well, emacs is a lifestyle. It's very efficient when you are used to it. Other than that you have all the standard UNIX stuff like vi and ed :-) next to Edit. >>The only way the free software can hurt NeXT is that people like you >>do not like quality but quantity. > >Relax, champ. I like quality a lot. But I think diversity is a good >thing, too. How can diversity be bad? I'm not opposed to diversity. I just see it as a second priority where as you seem to see it as a first priority. >>[Story about this Sirius computer deleted] >>Thats why people like you thought: OH, IBM MUST BE SOOO GREAT! >>and they went on and bought it. > >Oh, now I'm an IBM lover and a NeXT basher. Wow, I thought it was ok to >be critical on this board... :-) > >Seriously, I can't believe your statement that millions of people bought >an IBM based solely on the diversity of add-ons. You might be right: people >bought a piece of crap because it had lots of add-ons. But why should >I think add-ons would hurt NeXT? Then we'd have a great computer *and* >lots of spiffy software and hardware extras. You haven't convinved me >that diversity is bad. My point only was and is that the diversity helped create add pages to the magazines, and add pages mean editorial coverage etc. i.e. the crippled IBM filled more pages than the complete Sirius. The diversity of add-ons was not that much of an issue. I mentioned the Sirius story only because I think the NeXT and the Sirius have (given the difference in time) quite a few things in common and also shows where the ridiculous economic axiom of rational expectations and rationals decisions leads: to many unexplained phenomena. N.B it is completely ok to be critical here, but no one should take a little bit of sarcasm to personal either. >"Freewhare hurts diversity" is a conjecture. >"Freewhare doesn't hurt diversity" is a conjecture. >The issues are really complicated, and I don't think either "side" is >entirely right, including my own side. Well, I'd say Freeware hurts diversity in so far as that it raises the entry level of quality you have to have in order to sell something. This discourages some companies, but then again, if they can be discouraged by that, their products could not have been significantly better anyway. >I just want good software and was offering my opinion on why there is not >a lot of good software out there. This was a mistake, and that's why >I cancelled the original posting. This issue about freewhare just >gets too emotional. > >I care about the fate of NeXT probably a lot more than you think. Peace. Hey, there never was war. Discussion is actually never a mistake (as long as it remains somewhat reasonable and to the point). Ronald ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." G.B. Shaw | rca@cs.brown.edu or antony@browncog.bitnet
t68@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Jos Vermaseren) (04/03/91)
In article <14485@life.ai.mit.edu>, petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) writes: > At the moment, the GNU C compiler is > most likely the best there is, and it is still classfied by us as Beta > software. We are approaching v2.0, which will include C, C++ and > Objective-C (Thanks NeXT!). In my experiences, the GNU Compilers > generate better code than ANY compiler, including the one Sun is > selling for some $4000. > > + Chris Petrilli > | Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu > + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here. I did recently some real hackers tests on GNU versus Turbo-C on the Atari. I have a program FORM (symbolic manipulation program for truely big things) (available by anonymous ftp from nikhefh.nikhef.nl) which gives exceptionally compact code on the atari, so much so that the code part of the execuatble is 10% shorter than what GNU produces. So I hacked some special startup code so that I could run the atari executable on my NeXTstation for the real test. (including relocation and redirection of some routines to the NeXT system calls). The result was that the executable of the atari is nearly 4% faster than what the GNU compiler generates. Of course this doesn't mean that I don't appreciate what GNU is doing. It is as far as I know the second best 680x0 compiler if you go by size of the code and speed of execution. It is hard to make a similar statement about reliability, but it ranks definitely high in that department. The (only) 4% increase in speed makes it hardly worth the trouble to keep going up and down with sources and executables, so I am quite happy with GNU. I am also happy with gdb. It has some features that were sorely missing in dbx like 'print t[15234]@10' which is kinda hard in dbx. The problem with high quality free software is that it discourages professional programmers to work for that platform. There isn't anything wrong with that as long as enough good programmers can work on a GNU grant. Barring that you may wonder how all those other programmers are going to survive. It is just a social point. I am still happy with GNU. Cheers Jos Vermaseren
petrilli@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Chris Petrilli) (04/03/91)
Jos Vermaseren writes: >I did recently some real hackers tests on GNU versus Turbo-C on the Atari. >I have a program FORM (symbolic manipulation program for truely big things) >(available by anonymous ftp from nikhefh.nikhef.nl) which gives exceptionally >compact code on the atari, so much so that the code part of the execuatble >is 10% shorter than what GNU produces. The comparison of one simple (or even not so simple) program is not a basis for conclusion. That's like saying Computer A does 12.4 MIPS, and Computer B does 12.6, therefore Computer B is better, it doesn't mean anything. I suggest you attempt a more "complete" comparison, as I am sure the people around here would be interested in the results. Perhaps try compiling several LARGE programs (I don't know if AKCL could be done on the Atari but that's a good program, and then Emacs v18. :-) so that any simple differences would be avoided. I am not questioning that there is a better compiler, nor that there could be, just that one program doesn't a compiler make. :-) Also, it helps if times are given, 4% on a 4 second program is pretty insignificant compared to 4% on a 12 hour program, and in fact, 4% on a 4 second program could mean absolutely nothing, I mean did you account for different processor loadings? >So I hacked some special startup code so that I could run the atari executable >on my NeXTstation for the real test. (including relocation and redirection >of some routines to the NeXT system calls). >The result was that the executable of the atari is nearly 4% faster than what >the GNU compiler generates. As I pointed out, 4% is not enough difference, especially on only one program. If the compiler consistently generates better code (even 4% See above... glad to see you like gdb, I like it, but it needs alot of work to be perfect (for me anyway, I love Lisp machines). The thing is that the GNU compilers are running on ALOT of machines, I believe it is running on: 68K, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, RS/6000, 386, VAX, and several others. >The problem with high quality free software is that it discourages >professional programmers to work for that platform. There isn't anything >wrong with that as long as enougm good programmers can work on a GNU >grant. Barring that you may wonder how all those other programmers are >going to survive. It is just a social point. I am still happy with GNU. I disagree... free software (of high quality) forces people who wish to charge for software to produce better products. As someone pointed out, if someone wants to charge $4000 for a compiler (like Sun), it better be substantially better than GNU compiler (or any free compiler), and in the case of the Sun compiler, it doesn't even seem to be the equal of the GNU compiler. Not everyone is getting paid for doing work around here... I am writing the GNU C Reference Manual for $0 (free in other words). I use GNU software, and feel that I should help out, not to mention that I WHOLEHARTEDLY believe in what RMS and the FSF are doing. I think professionals see the FSF as a way to ignore the fact that they are not as good as they claim to be (I don't know many "professionals" that are of the quality of the people around here), and simply say "How can we compete, they are giving it away," rather than simply admitting "How can we compete, they are better." I am not saying it's impossible to produce a better compiler, but I suspect that it will come from the FSF for one VERY simple reason, we guide ourselves, we don't have a marketing department to tell us what the public wants, we are the public. Also, we don't have leadership that says "that's not worthwhile," in fact, people are encouraged to produce whatever they want, if someone doesn't want to work on a compiler, they are welcome to write somethign else (including the documentation). Chris -- + Chris Petrilli | Internet: petrilli@gnu.ai.mit.edu + Insert silly disclaimer drivel here.
barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) (04/03/91)
If you want to criticize freeware for stifling creativity, you should focus on Lotus, not GNU. Lotus made the fine Improv spreadsheet, and then gave it away free, just like GNU does, right? While the sentiment beneath the GNU freeware is to benevolent, I doubt that is the case with Lotus. I'm sure they want their free spreadsheet to saturate the (initially small) installed NeXT base, killing off all competitors and giving them a monopoly that will persist as the NeXT base (and Improv price!) increase. There is already one victim, namely Ashton-Tate's attempt at a spreadsheet, which I hear has been withdrawn (hard to compete with Improv, which is both good and free...) So, I would say free software can be used to strongly stifle diversity, especially when it is wielded as a weapon by a company intent on monopolizing a market. This is not the way GNU operates, though. Their quality software is free, and always will be. If they do monopolize an area, at least its a free monopoly. Disclaimer: don't get me wrong---I love Improv, and I'm very happy that they created it and gave it to me. I would gladly pay for such a fine product (and I'm sure some day I will!). But I also recognize the likely ulterior motives behind their benevolence. These motives are understandable, and I don't blame them for taking that approach---its smart business. But lets all call a spade a spade (and GNU is not a spade here). -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)