haynes@island.uu.net (Rob Haynes) (01/12/90)
I'm looking for the cheapest way to do program development on Unix. I plan to buy a 386 PC, put a unix without a development toolkit on it, get the GNU CC, AS, and LD. The question is, is that enough to do program development? A relevant question is, do the various 386 unix's come with libraries (like libc.a, libtermcap.a, etc.). If not, is there enough documentation to do direct system calls?
perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) (01/13/90)
In article <1271@island.uu.net> haynes@island.uu.net (Rob Haynes) writes: >I'm looking for the cheapest way to do program development on Unix. I >plan to buy a 386 PC, put a unix without a development toolkit on it, >get the GNU CC, AS, and LD. The question is, is that enough to do You should carefully check out that the GNU ld,gas,nm etc that you will need really supports 386 Unix. I have a feeling only GCC itself will work. GNU will not put any effort on supporting COFF format files, and even ATT will use a new format for executables in System V rel 4. Anyhow, the system-calls should have enough docs for you being able to make programs, but of course the documentation is in the PDK. And if you use GNU libraries you have committed to give away your sourcecode and your program. Please read the GNU copyleft. You might find that spending the extra bucks on the PDK is not such a bad idea. Per -- --- Per Andersson Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden perand@admin.kth.se, @nada.kth.se Newsgroups: poster Subject: Re: Cheapest way to Unix program developement References: <1271@island.uu.net> Reply-To: perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Keywords: Unix, GNUCC, GCC, 386 In article <1271@island.uu.net> haynes@island.uu.net (Rob Haynes) writes: >I'm looking for the cheapest way to do program development on Unix. I >plan to buy a 386 PC, put a unix without a development toolkit on it, >get the GNU CC, AS, and LD. The question is, is that enough to do You should carefully check out that the GNU ld,gas,nm etc that you will need really supports 386 Unix. I have a feeling only GCC itself will work. GNU will not put any effort on supporting COFF format files, and even ATT will use a new format for executables in System V rel 4. Anyhow, the system-calls should have enough docs for you being able to make programs, but of course the documentation is in the PDK. And if you use GNU libraries you have committed to give away your sourcecode and your program. Please read the GNU copyleft. You might find that spending the extra bucks on the PDK is not such a bad idea. Per -- --- Per Andersson Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden perand@admin.kth.se, @nada.kth.se
bt455s10@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Carl "Art" McIntosh) (01/13/90)
In a nutshell, yes you can use the GNU cc, as, ld utilities on the 386 platform, but there's a catch ... since GNU *does not* support COFF, you must feed your COFF C libraries to the *robotussin* utility found in the GNU binutils. Robotussin supports *encapsulated COFF*, which is basically COFF hidden inside a BSD wrapper. This will make your libraries unusable by the stock cc in the development system, converting to GNU as and ld is a total committment. You *can* have gcc use the system's ld thereby eliminating the need for robotussin, alas this means no GUN ld, as etc .. it's a tradeoff each GNU user must partake ...
mjm@foster.avid.oz (Mike McBain) (01/15/90)
In article <2711@draken.nada.kth.se>, perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) writes: > [...material deleted...]. And if you > use GNU libraries you have committed to give away your sourcecode and > your program. Please read the GNU copyleft. You might find that spending > the extra bucks on the PDK is not such a bad idea. Yes, please do read the GNU copyleft. Then you will realise that Mr Andersson has not done so and is writing a lot of nonsense. This kind of inflammatory statement keeps coming up time and time again about GNU software. You do not have to give away your programs at all. All that is required is that if you make enhancements to the _GNU_ programs (gcc, gas, etc.) you can not make them proprietary. When you consider the number of people who have benefited from GNU, it's really a shame that so many people just want to keep putting the boot in. For heaven's sake, guys. The only real difference between gcc and anyone else's C compiler is that you don't have to pay for gcc and you get source. In return, FSF insist that you can't sell or give away _their_product_ without also including source code. If you make a binary which includes your enhancements, you have to provide the source, or access to the source, of those enhancements. It's fair, and it helps everyone. FINALLY. Read the copyleft yourself. If you have a problem with it, don't use FSF programs. But don't rely on Mr Andersson (or me, for that matter 8} ) to tell you what it means. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike McBain, ACSnet: mjm@foster.avid.oz Avid Systems Pty Ltd, Tel: +61 3 534 2293 FAX: +61 3 534 0153 St Kilda, Australia 3182 UUCP: {hplabs,uunet}!munnari!foster.avid.oz!mjm D
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/16/90)
> Yes, please do read the GNU copyleft. Then you will realise that Mr Andersson > has not done so and is writing a lot of nonsense. This kind of inflammatory > statement keeps coming up time and time again about GNU software. You do > not have to give away your programs at all. All that is required is that if > you make enhancements to the _GNU_ programs (gcc, gas, etc.) you can > not make them proprietary. The following is from the GPL. Emphasis is mine. | 2. You may modify your copy or copies of GNU CC *OR ANY PORTION* of it, |and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of |Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following: ... | b) cause *THE WHOLE OF ANY WORK* that you distribute or publish, | that in whole or *IN PART* contains or is a derivative of GNU CC or | any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third | parties on terms identical to those contained in this License | Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more extensive | warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your option). ... |Mere aggregation of another unrelated program with this program (or its |derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring |the other program under the scope of these terms. > For heaven's sake, guys. The only real difference between gcc and anyone > else's C compiler is that you don't have to pay for gcc and you get source. This is not true, *IF* you include any library routines covered under the GPL, and if linking with a library is not considered "Mere aggregation... on a volume of storage". Various people associated with the FSF have stated that linking is not "mere aggregation", therefore you can't use any GNU libraries if you want to retain control over the distribution of your code. Which is all the original poster was saying. Not "don't use GCC". But "be aware of the pitfalls". > FINALLY. Read the copyleft yourself. If you have a problem with it, > don't use FSF programs. Seconded. To be quite sure what it means, get someone from the FSF to tell you. You can find out who's likely to be helpful by seeing who posts to the GNU.* groups. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
" Maynard) (01/17/90)
In article <634@foster.avid.oz> mjm@foster.avid.oz (Mike McBain) writes: >In article <2711@draken.nada.kth.se>, perand@nada.kth.se (Per Andersson) writes: >> [...material deleted...]. And if you >> use GNU libraries you have committed to give away your sourcecode and >> your program. Please read the GNU copyleft. You might find that spending >> the extra bucks on the PDK is not such a bad idea. >Yes, please do read the GNU copyleft. Then you will realise that Mr Andersson >has not done so and is writing a lot of nonsense. This kind of inflammatory >statement keeps coming up time and time again about GNU software. You do >not have to give away your programs at all. All that is required is that if >you make enhancements to the _GNU_ programs (gcc, gas, etc.) you can >not make them proprietary. Mike's statement is flat wrong, and Per's is correct. If you use GNU code in your program, your entire program comes under the GNU Public Virus...er...License. This has been hashed out very thoroughly on alt.religion.computers, and even the most rabid GNU defender agrees that that's the case. This includes the GNU Bison skeleton code, or any GNU libraries. The offending section of the GPL is section 2b: b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains the Program or any part thereof, either with or without modifications, to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this General Public License (except that you may choose to grant warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your option). This legal virus does exactly what Per claims. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "There is no doubt I should be tarred and feathered." - Richard Sexton
gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (01/17/90)
In article <D_212Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >|Mere aggregation of another unrelated program with this program (or its >|derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring >|the other program under the scope of these terms. >> For heaven's sake, guys. The only real difference between gcc and anyone >> else's C compiler is that you don't have to pay for gcc and you get source. >This is not true, *IF* you include any library routines covered under the >GPL, and if linking with a library is not considered "Mere aggregation... >on a volume of storage". Various people associated with the FSF have stated >that linking is not "mere aggregation", therefore you can't use any GNU >libraries if you want to retain control over the distribution of your code. Note that followups are directed elseware since the copyleft debate is not relevant to i386. But, you probably don't need to post there either, just look back at the recent discussion to which Peter has already contributed quite a bit of noise. Again, I ask how do you distinguish linking from mere agragation? I am asking this in a legal sense, not the "mere oppinion" of "various people." Peter's statement is not even authoratative with respect to RMS and/or FSF. And, you probably do want to look into this issue carefully before you release any code. Gerry Gleason
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/17/90)
Gerry Gleason says: > And, you probably do want to look into this issue carefully before you > release any code. Which is precisely what I said in my message, so why the (mild) flame? -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
allred@ut-emx.UUCP (Kevin L. Allred) (01/18/90)
Back to the real issue at hand, is it possible to get gcc, etc. running on a 386 unix without buying the software development option? If I wanted to do software development, I would have no problem paying for a commercial compiler where the copyright placed on code is not as big an issue. I want gcc so that I can build the latest version of emacs, TeX, dvitps, hack, or whatever. I don't have time to worry about writing extensive software that might have commercial application, but I do like the capability to build applications from source code when I get my hands on it. I just don't want to have to pay for the vendor's software development package to do it. Which of the 386 unix vendors ship enough of the hooks in the run time version to allow gcc etc. to be installed? -- Kevin Allred allred@emx.cc.utexas.edu allred@ut-emx.UUCP