HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs)
Newsgroups: gnu.gnusenet.config,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Should 'gnu' be a valid distribution?
Date: 24 Jan 1993 12:06:37 +0100
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1

In news.admin.misc, article <1jsai5INN18f@slab.mtholyoke.edu>,
  jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
> A very large percentage of the articles in the gnu.* hierarchy arrive
> on my system with distribution "gnu".  I think it might be the case
> that the mail->news gateway softare used generates this distribution
> header.  My feeling is that it shouldn't do that... I don't see any
> reason why "gnu" should be a valid distribution at all, and even if
> someone saw a need for such a distribution it certainly shouldn't be
> used on articles posted only to groups in the gnu.* hierarchy... the
> only thing it accomplishes there is to waste 18 bytes and continue to
> confuse the distribution header issue.
> 
We have the same problem in Germany, with the de.* hierarchy (German-language
newsgroups; don't ask me for a feed, as most well-connected US sites either
already have it or get a feed from somebody who does).

Nobody has yet come up with a sensible reason why a special distribution
for de.* would be necessary or even what semantics it should have.

Besides, since the header isn't necessary, many sites forget to add the
fake "de" distribution to their sys files, causing propagation holes for
articles that have this header.

> Since someone is now attempting to maintain a list of valid
> distributions, and since INN does a lot to help the cause of trying to
> make distributions useful again, I think that now would be a good time
> to settle this issue and fix the gateway software to not generate
> these useless distribution headers.

Many readers automatically insert a "Distribution: XXX" header when you
post to any newsgroup XXX.yyy.zzz, and special-case the hiarchies which
should not get that treatment (the "big seven").

IMHO, this is just plain wrong. It muddles the distinction between Newsgroups
and Distributions and forces me to add a lot of gunk to my sys / newsfeed
files if I don't want to drop these articles.

-- 
If you are in a car travelling at the speed of light in reverse and
        turn on the headlights, what happens?
-- 
Matthias Urlichs  --  urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de   /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 -- 7500 Karlsruhe 1 -- Germany  --  +49-721-9612521     \o)/
Xref: sparky gnu.gnusenet.config:25 news.admin.misc:1222
From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely)
Newsgroups: gnu.gnusenet.config,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Should 'gnu' be a valid distribution?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 07:31:14 -0500
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu
In-reply-to: jmalcolm@sura.net's message of Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:48:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.004849.26528@darwin.sura.net> jmalcolm@sura.net
 (Joseph Malcolm) writes:
>I would agree, but the last time this came up, the person who
>originally gatewayed the gnu.* groups (whose name I forget) said that
>the gnu distribution was indeed deliberate.

I honestly don't remember, although I've heard the explanation.
Speaking as the person who's currently running the news site where the
gateway resides, I have a mild preference for nuking the explicit
addition of "Distribution: gnu" on everything gatewayed to the groups.
We'd actually like to get out of the gatewaying business altogether
(we do more than gnu.*); it's one more complexity for our shrinking
staff to cope with.


			"The suspect was clearly an unbalanced
			 psycho... so many kids today are.  I suspect
			 he was a Satanist too, a belief he probably
			 picked up by reading those comic books."
-- 
J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4666 comp.sys.hp:15352
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
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 16:09:47
Organization: CenterLine Software R&D
	<FRANL.93Jan27115049@draco.centerline.com>
	<C1J3vs.Lzy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu's message of Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:07:03 GMT

peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes:

> franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:
> >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).
>
> Assuming the header files are available on any HP systems that you'd want
> to use it on, there wouldn't be any problem.

The header file is part of the source to HP's compiler's and
debuggers.  It isn't shipped with the OS.
--
franl@centerline.com         "So what we've decided to do is set you up in
uunet!centerline!franl        Cicely, situated in an area that we Alaskans
617-498-3255 (USA)            refer to as The Alaskan Riviera."
PGP 2.0 public key available.
From: erc@netcom.com (Eric Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:13:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1993Jan25.211321.25055
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

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

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?
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4619 comp.sys.sun.misc:6468
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Date: 23 Jan 1993 21:37:33 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

tyrell@seaotter.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:

>and marketing resources to take a hit from GNU. Who in their right mind, in 
>a volatile market like todays, is going to ENTER the UNIX market (where free
>software is rampant) and put money into creating OS or compilers?

The lack of commercial compilers for Unix in the old days had more to
do with the bundled (supported) C compiler, binary compatibility
hassles (e.g. DEC Mips boxes used to be incompatible with all other
Mips boxes) and low installed base.

Consider a success story: Sun.  Sun unbundled their C compiler.
It also helps that SPARC has an installed base of 0.8 million, with
good binary compatibility between all of them.

You say: in the presence of gcc nobody will want to write compilers for
SPARCs.  I say "in the absence of a bundled cc, given binary compatibility
across a large installed base, they will come".

In the event, I know of the following shipping compilers for SPARC:
Saber, Lucid, Apogee, Sunpro.  There exist a few others I can't recall.

These vendors are forced to do better in the presence of gcc+Cygnus.
E.g. Lucid and Saber are moving into GUI "development environments"
(not _my_ idea of a good way to develop software, but it gives users
more choices).  Apogee and Sunpro are working hard on producing better
code.  I think it's a very healthy state of affairs.

BTW Lucid and Emacs is a beautiful story of two-way interactions between
the worlds of free software and commercial software.  Someone care to
tell us the history of the project?

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@rcf.usc.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.hp
From: Hamish.Macdonald@bnr.ca (Hamish Macdonald)
Subject: Re: Attaching gdb to a running process on an HP
Organization: Bell Northern Research
	<1993Jan23.200540.10828@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 20:52:13 GMT

>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:05:40 GMT,
>>>>> In message <1993Jan23.200540.10828@Princeton.EDU>,
>>>>> subbarao@fc.hp.com (Kartik Subbarao) wrote:

Kartik> Interesting. I can't even get debugging to work normally with
Kartik> gdb. It always complains "no symbol table". This is even if I
Kartik> use cc -g, c89 -g, gcc -g, or gcc -ggdb. What am I missing
Kartik> here?

There are two ways to use gdb on an HPUX machine.

1) Get gcc to understand and insert HPUX debugging information into
   the object files it creates.  Also get gdb to understand and 
   retrieve HPUX debugging information from the executable.  To my
   knowledge, no-one has done this for a the 680x0 HP machines.  The
   folks at UUtah may have done this for the PA HP machines.

2) Configure GCC to use MIT syntax for object files.  Build gas and
   gld on the HP.  Since the debugging information inserted by gcc
   (and passed along by gas and gld) is the BSD stabs format, you can
   use gdb to debug the executables.  The one drawback is that you
   cannot use shared libraries unless you change gld to understand
   HPUX shared libraries.

The problem you are probbably seeing is that gdb is expecting to find
a BSD style symbol table in the executable, but instead there is just
the HPUX style symbol table.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: mafm@cs.uwa.oz.au (Matthew MCDONALD)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:46:48 GMT

[apologies to anyone who saw this twice]
Denys Larry writes:

>In article <1k1sf5INNbb5@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
[...]
>|>I'm a 5th year Ph. D. student in Economics.  :-)

>  Perhaps you can apply some of that ivory tower knowledge and answer the
>real question that runs through this thread:  Just how much better than
>GCC would a compiler have to be in order for people to pay, say, $100
>for it?

	Good enough to save me about $110 worth of hassle. Enough better
to save half a days work. Hell, there are plenty of people who'd pay
$100 for a shrink-wrapped copy of GCC rather than fiddle around
installing it themselves.

> Would enough people buy it to justify development costs.

	Of course they would, assuming it was properly marketed. 
Most people I've worked for used proper development tools. Often
that means buying them - but normally it meant replacing vendor's
crappy development kits with GNU stuff.

	If you're as concerned about making a buck as you seem to be,
you'd be a fool to use a compiler because it was cheaper than the
better quality alternative.

	Obviously a $100 dollar compiler (or a $1,000 compiler) that
was significantly better than gcc would make you a killing - You think
your potential customers are all stupid or what?

--
           Matthew McDonald  mafm@cs.uwa.oz.au
I hope that Scheme won't become the Pascal of the 90's.  I hate Pascal.
						-- Scott Fahlman
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
From: alanb@sdl.ug.eds.com (Alan Braggins)
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:05:22 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Shape Data (Division of EDS), Cambridge UK
In-reply-to: sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu's message of 25 Jan 93 14:55:43 MDT

>>>>> On 25 Jan 93 14:55:43 MDT, sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) said:

>   I have a question for all you GNU/socialists/commmunists out there.
> If the GNU idea is so great, why don't we apply it to other parts of the
> economy?  Like, say, woodworking.  Think about it.  You're a cabinet
> maker; you love to work with your hands and create works of art and use
> out of wood.  Why should you do such a thing for as filthy a reason as
> money.  Surely, you should just give away your work for free.

Sure. Once we have Star Trek replicator technology so we can copy chairs
for minimal cost, and cabinets so complex you can make a living selling
consultancy. Think about it. Maybe even take that one economics course
you mentioned.

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: jem@sunSITE.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:12:03 GMT

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.
Your standards for software have changed thus that you now demand access
to source code.  This seems (according to various accounts and the Manifesto)
the very thing that RMS hopes to achieve.

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

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

jem.

-- 
Jonathan Magid     jem@sunSITE.unc.edu       sunSITE Administrator
Virtual pizza Delivery (tm)::faxed in 30 cycles or less or you get it
----------------------------------------FREE!!!-----------------------
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: Public Domain C Compiler?
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
	<2B581A7D.16186@tct.com>
	<BURLEY.93Jan17153735@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<2B5ACF96.171C9@tct.com>
	<BURLEY.93Jan19155421@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:20:57 GMT

Craig Burley writes [many things, mostly elided]:

		...  Sure, if the PD source has been distributed even
   once, _theoretically_ anyone can get at it, but that assurance is
   not practical in today's society -- many people _will_ end up with
   the binary and no information on how to get at the source.

Mr. softwarecraftsperson, I don't think you have any idea as to what is
practical today, or what was practical a decade ago.  I spent a great
deal of the last decade of my life obtaining and distributing [as a DECUS
Canada librarian since 83 for VMS and later for UN*X, and as a private
programmer] megabytes of free software of all flavors, and my experience
is that *if* people are sufficiently interested, literate and are able to
communicate, there is hardly any difference between GPL-propped software
and other source-distributed free software in terms of getting to its
various forms, so long as people care enough to want to get it.

   If disassembling large binaries becomes something fairly easy, then
   many advantages of the GPL over PD will be reduced, of course.

Even if one is naive enough to assume that PD is the *only* alternative
to GPL, substantiating those "many advantages of GPL over PD" in any level
of seriousness would take considerably more than the cacophony of the
converted.

   My suggestion to those with preferences for PD over GPL, _please_
   hurry up and write a high-quality PD C compiler and distribute it
   widely with sources.

Maybe it won't be PD, but probably won't have an ideology attachment
either.

... oz
---
Truth doesn't always win friends, but | electric: oz@nexus.yorku.ca
influences people.      -- Batty Koda | pho: [416] 736 2100 x 33976
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:17:57 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:

>food costs money.  Maybe it has to do with the fact that very few 
>programmers out there have the luxury of sitting around like bums 
>and haveing a college foot the bill for their intellectual interests

Untrue.
Most hackers have "real jobs" and do hacking in sparetime.
There is a very tiny core of GNU development which is done by
full-time programmers, and they're paid for it.  (Paid much less
then their market price, but it's no "college footing the bill").

Even while at school, hacking has a price i.t.o. grades, qualifying
exams, publications, ... your career.  It's most certainly not a
cruise liner.

>  I have a question for all you GNU/socialists/commmunists out there.
>If the GNU idea is so great, why don't we apply it to other parts of the
>economy?  Like, say, woodworking.  Think about it.  You're a cabinet
>maker; you love to work with your hands and create works of art and use

Because software is special in that the cost of making one more
copy of gcc is 0.  Once a good program is written and placed in
the PD, it is like air: a public good.  From sound economics, then,
there IS a case for the funding of the creation of such public goods
using taxes.

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.  One program can reach infinite users
at 0 cost, and it'll still be humming away many years hence.

>That's because they cannot.  The point is true, as you would know if you
>took a single course in economics.

I'm a 5th year Ph. D. student in Economics.  :-)

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@rcf.usc.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.hp
From: Hamish.Macdonald@bnr.ca (Hamish Macdonald)
Subject: Re: HP debug info and the FSF (was: Attaching gdb to a running process on an HP)
Organization: Bell Northern Research
	<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>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:44:02 GMT

>>>>> In article <FRANL.93Jan27115049@draco.centerline.com>
>>>>> franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

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

>>>>> On 27 Jan 93 13:01:21,
>>>>> In message <FRIEDMAN.93Jan27130121@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>,
>>>>> friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) wrote:

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

Does this hp-pa port of gcc/gas use the stock HP linker; i.e. shared
libraries are supported by this system?
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: rvloon@cv.ruu.nl (Ronald van Loon)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Originator: rvloon@triton.cv.ruu.nl
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 09:38:55 GMT
Organization: University of Utrecht, 3D Computer Vision Research Group

In <1993Jan25.145544.63165@cc.usu.edu> sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu (869483 Denys Larry) writes:

|"  I find it interesting that when a poster makes a very cogent point
|"about how much better than GCC would a compiler have to be in order
|"for you to purchase it, not one poster that has followed up has come
|"up with an answer.

A compiler needs to be a lot better than GCC - that has been said multiple
times and I cannot agree more.

|"All they do is harp about what a wonderful thing
|"GCC is because it "ups the ante" or "establishes a floor" or weeds out
|"the bad software out there.  But not one has answered the poster's point.
|"That's because they cannot.  The point is true, as you would know if you
|"took a single course in economics.

The only reason that people need commercial compilers is support.
GCC does not guarantee support, or even that it 'works'. If it doesn't work,
you can send in a bug-report. It will eventually be fixed - hopefully. With
commercial compilers you have paid a certain company to give you a working
product - if it does not function as it should, you have the right to complain
and demand that your problem is fixed ASAP. In other words, you get what you
pay for.
-- 
Ronald van Loon     | Consider this: In the United States, an automobile is
(rvloon@cv.ruu.nl)  | stolen EVERY 14.7 SECONDS. 
3DCV Group, Utrecht |   If that statistic scares you, think how we felt when we 
The Netherlands     | made it up. - Dave Barry, "CHRISTMAS BUYERS GUIDE"
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: magnus@brisk.ii.uib.no (Magnus Y Alvestad)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Reply-To: magnus@johanna2.hsr.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN
	<1993Jan25.145544.63165@cc.usu.edu> <1k1sf5INNbb5@almaak.usc.edu>
	<1993Jan26.160144.63218@cc.usu.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 02:16:27 GMT

>>>>> On 26 Jan 93 16:01:43 MDT, sl1yn@millville.declab.usu.edu
>>>>> (869483 Denys Larry) said:

	>>   Perhaps you can apply some of that ivory tower knowledge
	>> and answer the real question that runs through this thread:
	>> Just how much better than GCC would a compiler have to be
	>> in order for people to pay, say, $100 for it?  Would enough
	>> people buy it to justify development costs.

No. Those people that are planning to make money from making just
another compiler will have to give it up. Hell, there must be
thousands of programmers out there that can only make compilers.
They'll starve and die! No wait! They can make compilers for Macs!
Because that horrible plague GPL (General Plague Lisence) hasn't
infected those, thanks to Apple.

-Magnus
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: andyr@wizzy.com (Andy Rabagliati)
Subject: Re: GNU Debugger on IRIX 4.0.5F
Organization: W.Z.I.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:09:46 GMT

I got no response from the sgi newsgroups, so I hope you will forgive me
for reposting this here :-

    I am having problems using the GNU Debugger 4.7 under IRIX 4.0.5F.
    
    I used 'configure mips-sgi-irix4' which worked fine for gcc-2.3.3.
    
    It complains that GDB can't read core files on this machine.
    I only have 16M RAM here, and it runs out of memory running the
    executable under gdb - so I need to read corefiles.
    
    I might accept that if the executable had been created using SGI cc, but
    this is something created with gcc 2.3.3.
    
    The same happened with GDB 4.3, which is why I upgraded.
    
    Is there something I am missing here ?
    Do I need different libraries ? 
    
    [ I linked with whatever the defaults were ]

Cheers,   Andy.


-- 
Amendment 2 information newsgroup co.politics.amend2.info - mailing list also.
andyr@wizzy.com          W.Z.I. Consulting (719)635-6099               pgp-2.1
From: h108373@cs.tut.fi (Hakkarainen Kimmo)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: ftp site for the unix WHICH command
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:23:58
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: naakka.cs.tut.fi
In-reply-to: nazari@kraft.ecn.purdue.edu's message of 20 Jan 93 21:12:45 GMT


nazari@kraft.ecn.purdue.edu (Jamshid Nazari) writes:

>   Does anyone know where can I get the source code for the 
>   unix WHICH command. I don't think this is one of programs in
>   gnu's shell utilitiy project. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks

If you are using bash, you can use 'type -path' instead of 'which'.

Kimmo
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4662 comp.sys.hp:15345