HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP debug info and the FSF (was: Attaching gdb to a running process on an HP)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 20:29:36 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <FRANL.93Jan27115049@draco.centerline.com> franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:
>> Yes, you can get a modified gcc-2.3.3.u3 for PA HP's from
>> jaugar.utah.edu:/dist.
>> I just downloaded hpuxbin.tar.Z, which contained the executables
>> for gcc, gdb, etc. that worked (with symbolic debugging & all)
>> without modification.
>
>I thought that HP was refusing to "free" its debugger symbol table
>format (specifically the header file that defines all of the debugger
>symbol data structures).  That would mean no Gnu product can read or
>write HP debug info, because the FSF won't use code that isn't free,

This is correct.  The tools from jaguar (not jaugar, as above) generate
debug information using "stabs" format.  This means that gcc/g++ code
can be debugged with gdb, but you can't use gdb to debug code produced
by HP's compilers, and you can't use HP's debugger to debug gcc/g++
code.

>Which is it: Do gcc and gdb understand HP debug info or don't they?

They don't -- they use an incompatible format, the same format used
on BSDish systems.

>I too have heard about work at the University of Utah to teach gcc/gdb
>about HP debug info, but I have also heard that HP has effectively
>killed that work by refusing to free the necessary header file.

They've killed it even deader than that.  The Utah people have signed
a nondisclosure agreement, meaning they could be sued if they reveal
HP trade secrets even if they found some other way to do the job
(without HP proprietary headers).  Either HP will need to relent,
or someone else (who has not signed a nondisclosure) will need to
do the work.

I've had similar problems with HP, attempting to port a freely
redistributable system to the HP.  This system does incremental linking,
which is very tricky on the HP-PA architecture.  HP's attitude on things
like this is not like other companies.  I could get the information,
perhaps, by signing a nondisclosure (HP's rivals would simply send me
the information), but that would prevent releasing free software that
uses the ideas.

To be fair, my contact at HP found me some non-HP experts to talk to
so I could make some progress on my problem.  I'm still bothered by
the fact that it is evidently against company policy to permit me
to talk to an HP employee who, say, knows how the linker works.

Given this attitude on the part of HP, I'd have to recommend that research
organizations avoid the company until they have a change of policy -- it
shouldn't be a secret as to how to do advanced programming on your
workstation.  If it is, and you need to do this kind of programming, it
might be a good idea to buy someone else's.



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: mike@mystix.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel)
Subject: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: CS Dept, University of Oregon
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:22:30 GMT

One claim that many proponents of the 'gnu considered harmful' theory
are making is that the existence of the gnu software harms innovation.
The line of argument seems to be as follows:

  Given a choice between an adequate free product and an excellent
  commercial product, users will nearly always choose the free product
  even though it may not fully meet their needs.  Gnu software is
  flooding the marketplace with adequate free products, and therefore
  people who wish to develop better proprietary products will not be
  able to make a living.  Thus Gnu software kills innovation.

The fallacy of this argument is obvious.  The argument claims that gnu
software harms innovation, since in the absence of gnu software better
products would edge out the poorer ones.  The history of the proprietary
software industry shows that nothing is farther from the truth:  the
success of a product has little to do with its technical merit, and a
lot to do with marketing and "standardization".  The ultimate example
is MS-DOS: early 60's OS technology at best, yet still millions of
copies are sold.

As a counterclaim, I would like to suggest that making adequate free
software available is a good way to help force entrenched obsolete
software out of the marketplace, and therefore the gnu project may
help improve software diversity.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker)
Subject: Re: ftp site for the unix WHICH command
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Physics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
	<FRIEDMAN.93Jan20183002@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:29:45 GMT

>>>>> On 20 Jan 93 18:30:02, friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) said:

nf> Personally, I would advise against using `which'.  It is
nf> [t]csh-centric and does *bad* things by deliberately sourcing your
nf> .cshrc (this is a value judgement and I'm not going to waste time
nf> defending my position---just accept that I think it's bad).

The sourcing part is horrible indeed. Nevertheless, I use 'which'
quite often as it's a zsh builtin. It simply looks in the command hash
table.

Bas.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: mcgrant@rascals.stanford.edu (Michael C. Grant)
Subject: WIRED article on Richard Stallman
Organization: Information Systems Laboratory, Stanford University
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:15:24


I just wanted to mention that in the premiere of the new magazine, WIRED,
there's an article about Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation.
It seems more complementary about the man than it does the foundation---not
that they had a problem with the FSF. They just pointed out some problems,
such as funding shortages due to the recession (just like everyone else),
the delays on Emacs 19 and the GNU OS, etc.

Anyway, you might want to pick up the magazine. It's based in San
Francisco, and it's a premiere issue, so I'm not so sure everyone
everywhere can get it. But, it has interesting articles about cellular
phone hacking, Japanese 'otaku' (super-nerds, basically), HDTV, and
a bunch of tidbits about interesting technology. The formatting and
typography is a little frustrating, but the articles are good.
I recommend it.

Michael C. Grant
mcgrant@isl.stanford.edu

--
"Long hair, short hair--what's the difference once the head's blowed off?" (?)
From: pen@lysator.liu.se (Peter Eriksson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:52:49 GMT
Organization: Lysator ACS at Linkoping University

Someone writes:
>	I don't see how you have a company that markets its skills in maintaing
>GNU code since the work they do  would be publically available.

Well, there are a number of companies that are doing that right now. You
seem to forget a few things from a generic company's point of view:

   o It cost a *lot* of money to have employees read news to monitor
     for patches/bugs, to have them retrieve the software and patches
     and then spend a lot of time configuring it and building it and then
     make sure it works. And then you have to add the costs of downloading
     software over modem or an even more expensive TCP/IP network. And then
     repeat this a lot of times a year. During all that time the employee
     could be working on doing the work he/she was employed for. Oh, and I
     forget the time spent on printing the manuals. It all adds up to a
     lot of $$$$$

   o A company that uses Gnu stuff very often want to have support from
     a company that specializes on knowing the GNU stuff so that it won't
     have to spend a lot of hours (expensive hours) doing debugging to
     find bugs in the compilers when they rather would spend those ours
     debugging their own software :-)

/Peter

--
Peter Eriksson                                              pen@lysator.liu.se
Lysator Academic Computer Society                 ...!uunet!lysator.liu.se!pen
University of Linkoping, Sweden                I'm still bored. Flame me again.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:11:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.205326.24479@klaava.Helsinki.FI> lukka@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tuomas J Lukka) writes:

>Or do you mean that consumers start demanding companies to write free software?

Consumers already demanded that companies drop copy protection. Just
look at the change in the PC market on this issue. Companies like
Cygnus are happy to fill a niche supporting (& writing) free software.

Free market. It applies even to "free" software.
From: sljn6@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: post script to text
Date: 24 Jan 93 17:15:43 MDT
Organization: Utah State University



I wanted to know if there exists any free software to
change post script file to normal text.

thanks 
rajiv goyal
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
From: alanb@sdl.ug.eds.com (Alan Braggins)
Date: 27 Jan 93 10:54:25 GMT
 <1993Jan25.145544.63165@cc.usu.edu><1k1sf5INNbb5@almaak.usc.edu><930126.120854.5l0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK
In-reply-to: mathew's message of Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:08:54 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:08:54 GMT, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> said:
> X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
>> If I slaved away and built me a beautiful car (never mind that it's
>> hard to do a one-off) and gave it away, where would we be?  The world
>> would have one happy car-owner.  And that car would wear out and breakdown.
>> Software has no such problems.

> You haven't run Windows, have you?

So how do you restore a car from backup after a crash?
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: lukka@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tuomas J Lukka)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: University of Helsinki
Distribution: gnu
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:24:24 GMT

In article <H.eg.sISqCqbnpuk@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>>But ENTERing the market with a new, innovative compiler idea is QUITE
>>a different task now than years ago.
>
[stuff deleted]
>if someone did come up with one, and the innovation was really useful,
>rather than merely decorative, I can't see how gcc would impede sales of
>it. 
>	Perhaps what you really mean is that the presence of gnu software on
>the market means a company has to come out with a product which does as
>good a job as the equivalent gnu software in their first release, rather
>than releasing a bug ridden, not particularly effecient product, and
>then using the customer's money to refine the porduct (or add new
>features which allow charging of upgrade fees)
>	If most software companies had the professional standards of a
>normal business, perhaps they'd be more competitive.

(Sorry for the long quote...)

No, I'm not saying this. I'm saying that if someone would come up with a 
new, excellent compiler, they would have a hard time entering the market
because
a) They would not have a big name (Borland, GNU)
b) Why pay $400 for their compiler, even if it has these new features when
   gcc is free... not getting a chance to know those new features.

Being bug-ridden or not has got very little to do with it, because the
bugs only matter after they get a reputation of any kind.

The point is, although I consider GNU a Good Thing in general, I wouldn't
put any program on my home PC any more that I couldn't get the source to,
GNU is weeding out the diversity of the software market. Few people will
undertake the task to make a new C compiler from scratch, even though
they might have several better ideas than GNU. Gcc is slow in compilation
(especially on a machine like mine at home), but still, it's free...
why not be satisfied? This attitude is very dangerous, it leads into 
accepting much lower quality software, because of the concentrated 
effort. GNU has several people working on this stuff, why would I
want to do anything about it, even though I knew how to? 

To me, it seems that concentration of effort to bring out 'free' (in 
GNU's terms (I do not disagree with the definition, just in case someone
else does)) software is actually harmful to the free software itself.
Just look at Gnu Emacs... several megabytes of an EDITOR in memory.
(This is my personal view, it is NOT intended to start an editor flame
war) This is an example of a concentrated effort in the (IMHO) wrong
direction... But again, it's free, who would like to make another
one that would never get as much acclaim...

Please, when followuppying to this message, don't flame, these thoughts
are just rough sketches of ideas coming from someone having troubly
expressing himself verbally in any way.


	TJL

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4667 comp.sys.hp:15364
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP debug info and the FSF (was: Attaching gdb to a running process on an HP)
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:03:42
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
	<1993Jan23.200540.10828@Princeton.EDU>
	<1993Jan24.205213.14915@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
	<HUTTAR.93Jan25164454@hp750.itg.ti.com>
	<FRANL.93Jan27115049@draco.centerline.com>
	<FRIEDMAN.93Jan27130121@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1993Jan27.194402.15161@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: Hamish.Macdonald@bnr.ca's message of 27 Jan 93 19:44:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.194402.15161@bmerh85.bnr.ca> Hamish.Macdonald@bnr.ca (Hamish Macdonald) writes:
>Does this hp-pa port of gcc/gas use the stock HP linker; i.e. shared
>libraries are supported by this system?

I've never tried it on a version of HPUX that has shared libraries, but it
should certainly be able to use the standard linker even if it only creates
static executables.  It has to, because the GNU linker hasn't been ported
yet.

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: ozzello@a1 (Anthony Ozzello)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Organization: cems
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:05:00 GMT

My whole take on this argument that its impossible to write good new
innovative compilers because of GNU is this: write your compiler and
integrate it with gcc and release it to the world free. Why does
everything have to be so profit oriented? You want to do something,
so just do it and we'll all marvel at your innovation and use it too.
What better payment could you ask for?
Tony

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
	<mwalker-250193094209@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com>
	<1993Jan25.223623.11624@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Distribution: gnu
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:17:21 GMT

Greg Lindahl writes:


   > How much incentive does a company that makes "free" compilers have
   >for innovation? Almost none. Note: porting is not innovation.

   A lot. ...

I find it surprising that those who can write such a clever compiler
cannot come up with clever methods so that anybody can port gcc to a
new architecture in a matter of hours at most, without having to pay
for external help. I guess it is a matter of priority. :-]

... oz



Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: lukka@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tuomas J Lukka)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: University of Helsinki
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:53:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.081203.25955@samba.oit.unc.edu> jem@sunSITE.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.222424.24191@klaava.Helsinki.FI> lukka@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tuomas J Lukka) writes:
>>
>>The point is, although I consider GNU a Good Thing in general, I wouldn't
>>put any program on my home PC any more that I couldn't get the source to,
>>GNU is weeding out the diversity of the software market. 
>
>You did it! You just got the whole point of the FSF by accident.

By accident? Hardly. I DO know how to read...

>And rather than "weeding out diversity", this should just up the ante.  People
>write great software *and* the user has the source available.  

Except that the truth value of the proposition before the *and* is not neces-
sarily T. 

People write software that WILL DO for others because it's free and has
source availability. Not necessarily great. 

>If the consumer (you for example) demands it, it will happen. Thats what the
>market is all about. ;)

Market? With FREE software? Please, explain what the 'market' has to do with
free software? It's creators are not affected by the market, they make what
they see fit. 

Or do you mean that consumers start demanding companies to write free software?
Please convince USL not to sue UCB and I will believe you.
	
	TJL
From: ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:46:52 GMT
Organization: Infinity Development, Waltham, MA

erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith) writes:

>In article <C1FBoE.Gy6@news2.cis.umn.edu> ozzello@a1 (Anthony Ozzello) writes:
>>[see for yourself]

>You imply that independent programmers should develop software just as
>a hobby, and should have another source of income so they can pay their
>rent, etc.  What about those who don't want a full time job other than
>developing software independently?  If their work is good enough to earn
>them a decent living, are you saying you want them to retreat from it,
>make it a hobby, and go back to work for an employer?

He didn't say that people currently earning a decent living should
leave it.  He just said that they should be satisfied even if they can
not earn a decent living.

Other than that, your argument makes no sense.  Independent
programmers have no more right to earn a living than, say, art
photographers.  I'm sure plenty of art photographers don't want a full
time job other than photography.  But except for a handful of lucky
people, they all have to work on some other job for somebody else.
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
``Never judge someone by who he's in love with; judge him by his friends.
  People fall in love with the most appalling people.  Take a cool,
  appraising glance at his pals.''
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: bryan@alex.com (Bryan Boreham)
Return-Path: <news@alex.com>
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Organization: Alex Technologies Ltd, London, England
Apparently-To: mail2news@demon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 10:33:08 +0000

In article <1993Jan25.012247.7610@cc.uow.edu.au>, amorton@cc.uow.edu.au (andrew morton) writes:
|> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
|> 
|> >UNIX is going to be killed by NT.  After reading the latest UnixWorld, I
|> >believe that.  I didn't before, but the article about Cutler convinces me.
|> ...
|> 
|> Perhaps, but if he's such a smart cookie how come he designed an
|> OS that will only run on little-endian machines?

I have heard this assertion before, but I find it very hard to believe.  
Would someone like to back it up, e.g. citing the particular casts and
unnatural unions that make the code little-endian-only?

Bryan Boreham
From: dmarer@td2cad.intel.com (Dennis Marer)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: How to publish software under GNU general public license?
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:54:37 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA

A quick question - I am developing a rather large project which I intend to
make available for use by the general public.  What is necessary to use the
GNU General Public License for protection?  I.E.:

|    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify   |
|    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as      |
|    published by the Free Software Foundation.                             |

Do I just include this header (plus other suggested info) in my source code,
plus the suggested message at run-time?  Or are there other steps that need
to be taken for this software to be protected under this license?

Is this license what's known as the GNU Copyleft?

Just wondering...I'm 'gnu' to this free software business... :-)

				Dennis
				dmarer@td2cad.intel.com
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:19:44 GMT

haley@husc11.harvard.edu (Elizabeth Haley) writes:

>The difference between bits of software should be Technical Support,
>and a good bit of manuals, and other goodies...
>
>Interestingly enough, Emacs at least has quite a nice manual with it,
>that you can print out at your expense...
>
>But the things it lacks is:
>Binaries, Tech Support for free, and a warranty of any kind...

Usually ALL software - whether PD, copylefted, or commercial - does not come
with a warranty, except perhaps for the physical medium on which you bought
it. Even if your compiler says "100% ANSI-compatible" on the box, I'll bet
that the fine print on the license means that even if it wipes your hard
disk and blows your monitor when you try to compile a "hello world" program,
you won't even be able to get a refund of your purchase price.

Does anyone know of some generally-available software that *does* come with
a real warranty?

-- 
Fergus Henderson             fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU      
This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but 
you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
.signature file!
From: night@acm.rpi.edu (Trip Martin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: ftp site for the unix WHICH command
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:54:23 GMT
Reply-To: night@acm.rpi.edu
Distribution: na

In <BAS.93Jan21132945@carlo.phys.uva.nl> bas@phys.uva.nl (Bas de Bakker) writes:

>>>>>> On 20 Jan 93 18:30:02, friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) said:

>nf> Personally, I would advise against using `which'.  It is
>nf> [t]csh-centric and does *bad* things by deliberately sourcing your
>nf> .cshrc (this is a value judgement and I'm not going to waste time
>nf> defending my position---just accept that I think it's bad).

>The sourcing part is horrible indeed. Nevertheless, I use 'which'
>quite often as it's a zsh builtin. It simply looks in the command hash
>table.

I wrote a shell function to replace the command which because the command
was so slow (at least on the machines I use). Here it is for anyone that's 
interested:

which() { IFS=:$IFS; for d in $PATH; do test -f $d/$1 && echo $d/$1 && break; done ;}
--
Trip Martin
night@acm.rpi.edu
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4660 comp.sys.hp:15343
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: HP debug info and the FSF (was: Attaching gdb to a running process on an HP)
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:01:21
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
	<1993Jan23.200540.10828@Princeton.EDU>
	<1993Jan24.205213.14915@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
	<HUTTAR.93Jan25164454@hp750.itg.ti.com>
	<FRANL.93Jan27115049@draco.centerline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: franl@centerline.com's message of 27 Jan 93 11:50:49

In article <FRANL.93Jan27115049@draco.centerline.com> franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:
>Which is it: Do gcc and gdb understand HP debug info or don't they?

They don't.  The port of GAS that Utah did for the hp-pa uses a
different symbol table format that gdb can understand (probably dbx
stabs, but I haven't actually checked).  But the assembler language is
different from the native HPUX one too, so when you build gcc you have
to either arrange always to use gas or never to (which means using the
native assembler).  If you use the native assembler, gdb won't be able
to debug the resulting executables.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss