HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:50:39 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Distribution: gnu
NNTP-Posting-Host: chezmoto.ai.mit.edu

In article <MIKE.93Jan23142230@mystix.cs.uoregon.edu>,
mike@mystix.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) wrote:
>
> 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".

IMHO, the same could be said about GNU software: It does not succeed on its
technical merit, but because it is free and widely used (i.e. marketing and
standardization). Therefore, the same argument applies: How much would one
pay for a slightly better compiler than GCC? How much would one pay for an
unbelievably better super-compiler? Enough to even justify development
costs? How much incentive does a company that makes "free" compilers have
for innovation? Almost none. Note: porting is not innovation.

> 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.

Yes, it probably will force entrenched obsolete software out the market.
Normal market forces do that, too. The problem with GNU is that it forces
other companies out the market. This reduces the base of those with
incentive to make the new software and spur innovation.

Clearly, the only reasonable alternative under a GNU-utopia would be to
take jobs in software maintenance.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: freiwald@tardiz.enet.dec.com (Chuck Freiwald)
Subject: Looking for flex for VMS
Reply-To: freiwald@tardiz.enet.dec.com (Chuck Freiwald)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:29:48 GMT



I'm looking for FLEX that I can run on VMS. A version of GNUMAKE that 
runs on VMS would also be helpful. 


--

************************************************************
* ******************************************************** *
* *  __________________           __                     * *
* *  \_________________|)____.---'--`---.____            * *
* *                ||    \----.________.----/            * *
* *              __||____/ /_    `--'                    * *
* *             |___         \   :-Chuck                 * *
* *                 `--------'                           * *
* *                                                      * *
* *    Work: (603) 884-3063                              * *
* ******************************************************** *
************************************************************
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Date: 24 Jan 1993 09:07:11 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

tyrell@seaotter.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:
>*Sigh*. I suppose that in the long run, GNU will fizzle (or UNIX will die) and

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.
He's got the experience to write a good OS, and he's got the
proper motivation: he thinks he was screwed by someone and wants to get
back at them, and writing a very good OS is the way to do that.

Add that to Microsoft's size and marketing clout (More than half of all
software sold last year in the US was from Microsoft, and Microsoft is
now worth more money than IBM), and it's time to get depressed.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4671 comp.sys.hp:15373
From: dreier@maize.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.hp
Subject: Boycott HP? was: HP debug info and the FSF
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:45:31
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
	<HUTTAR.93Jan25164454@hp750.itg.ti.com>
	<FRANL.93Jan27115049@draco.centerline.com>
	<1k6rbg$caq@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: maize.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu's message of 27 Jan 1993 20:29:36 GMT

In article <1k6rbg$caq@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:

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

   >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.

Even more to the point, should there not be a boycott of support for GNU
software on the HP platform?  It seems that, just as in cases of other
companies that are boycotted by FSF, HP has a policy that is directly
contrary to the survival of the free software idea (after all, if everyone
made like HP, where would free software be?  It's just like if Ford had
copyrighted the steering wheel, blah, blah, ... you get the idea).
--
Roland Dreier                                        dreier@math.berkeley.edu
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:08:54 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
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?


mathew
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:18:10 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

alanb@sdl.ug.eds.com (Alan Braggins) writes:
>So where did you hear about multi-user NT?

In the latest UnixWorld.  The problem with NT for multi-user use is the
interface -- the filesystem and other parts have what you need (considering
that one of the things they want to sell NT as is a server, this is not
surprising).  Citrix is working with the NT source to fix this, by providing
a networked version of the interface so that users can use NT from relatively
dumb machines (e.g., use a 286 as a windowing terminal for NT).

The next couple of years are going to be interesting: NT, OS/2, Unixware,
Windows, and a few others.  I feel sorry for the people that have to decide
where development resources should be committed...
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Date: 26 Jan 1993 22:56:12 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

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

Ah, another person who completely misunderstands the GNU philosophy.  GNU
is not about "giving away your work for free".  In fact, RMS very much
believes in charging for your *services*.  But he also believes that when
you purchase software you should get the whole thing and the right to do
whatever you want with it.

When you buy a cabinet, the woodworker doesn't get to tell you where you
can install it or whether you can resell it.  And if you decide to make a
second cabinet yourself, he doesn't sue you if it looks like his cabinet.
When you buy a cabinet, the price covers the material costs and the cabinet
maker's labor.  And for this you get the cabinet, not a "license to use"
the cabinet.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: lindor@eng.umd.edu (Lindor Eric Henrickson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Ghostscript driver for Canon LBP8 (or LBP4)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:16:52 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: modulation.eng.umd.edu

Re: Ghostscript 2.5.2 printer driver:

I have made some modifications to the Canon lbp8 printer driver 
so that I can use 8.5x11" paper (it was originally written for A4 size).
For the most part it works great, but there is one small problem that
I haven't been able to fix.  The top and left margins are always
too wide (top one is too wide by about 3/8" and left one by
about 1/4").  An example:  I set margins in Wordperfect to 1",
but when I print using ghostscript, I get a top margin of about
1-3/8" and a left margin of about 1-1/4".  None of the text 
is cut off, its just shifted.

I haven't been able to figure out how to fix this. I was
wondering if anyone else has found a way to fix this problem.
(I tried to contact the original author by e-mail, but the
address in devs.mak doesn't seem to be valid anymore)

If anyone has the source code for a working  Canon lbp8 or lbp4
printer driver for 8.5x11" paper, I would appreciate it
if you could e-mail it to me.

Lindor Henrickson
University of Maryland, Electrical Engineering Dep't
lindor@eng.umd.edu
From: folsom@bigmax.UUCP (Al Folsom)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Summary: food
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:47:00 GMT
Organization: Fischer & Porter Co., Warminster, PA.

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

How about food and clothing for my three sons, money to pay my mortgage,
not having my car repossessed, an occasional beer, maybe some gas for
the car...


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Al Folsom                 | Object Oriented Programming?  We've   |
| Fischer & Porter Co.      | been doing that for years...          |
| ...uunet!bigmax!folsom    |                                       |
| also folsom@decus.org     | When the customer objects to the way  |
| KY3T@WA3TSW (Ham)         | it works, we go program some more!    |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software II
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 28 Jan 1993 17:29:13 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: chezmoto.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan28.081921.867@klaava.Helsinki.FI>,
laakkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Laakkonen) wrote:
> 
> In <mwalker-270193172005@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
> 
> >Sure you can demand it. Whether or not anybody listens.... of course, there
> >are no garuantees with GCC, either in this respect.
> 
> ... in practice it turns out that GNU people listen to these
> "demands" more readily.

In my experience many for-profit corporations listen to demands at least as
readily as GNU. Several of these respond to demands even more readily,
especially if the company is not a big, bloated one. Smaller companies that
have been around for a while generally seem to have good reactions to user
feedback that is sent to them. This, of course, is only my experience. It
could vary widely from other people's.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.
From: cgra@btma74.nohost.nodomain (Chris Gray)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 25 Jan 93 09:23:43 GMT
Reply-To: cgra@se.alcbel.be
Distribution: gnu



In article <1993Jan22.222424.24191@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, lukka@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tuomas J Lukka) writes:

>... 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? 

Well I haven't quite got hold of g++ yet (didn't fill in the cheque properly :(
OK, Bjarne, email on its way), but I can imagine that it'll run pretty slow
on my Atari ST. And will probably fill most of my 4 MB of RAM.

I can live with this, or upgrade my machine, or ... well I do have the source
code, don't I? I would be very surprised to find that g++ was already optim-
ised for speed or space, written as it is for the Un*x make-believe world
where memory is infinite and CPU cycles plentiful (see under "VM considered
harmful", etc :)). I would be prepared to bet, um, a copy of Llamatron :>
that the contraption could be made smaller and faster without compromising
correctness or functionality. Not because the gnu programmers aren't the best
in the world, but because the general tool is never as efficient as the specific.

This could make me very popular in the ST world, tho' not necessarily very
rich - I can try and add value in the form of support (for those switches I
added :>), but I can't stop "my" STg++ from joining the pool of "`free'"
software on the bulletin boards etc..

BTW on comp.os.minix or whatever (yes I've been looking at minix too) there
has recently been some lively discussion og g++ vs. the Amsterdam Compiler
Kit (commercial). "Why pay $200 when g++ is free", "g++ won't run on my 286",
"g++ is slow", "ACK is buggy",... seeming to confirm that gnu doesn't lock
out other software, but does serve as a baseline.

> Just look at Gnu Emacs... several megabytes of an EDITOR in memory.

Emacs an EDITOR???

>	TJL


__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray        | Any views expressed are those of the author and not of 
cgra@se.alcbel.be | Alcatel Bell, Technology Project Services, the British
Compu$erve:       | Computer Society, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Soc.,
100065.2102       | Scottish Youth Hostels Association, etc. etc. etc.
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: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:36:23 GMT

In article <mwalker-250193094209@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:

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

A lot. People who want to pay for support are willing to pay more to a
company that they think is on the "bleeding edge". I suspect that a
big chunk of Cygnus' customers are people who like the notion that a
lot of GNU development happens there, and their staff did a lot of
work on g++ and a lot of work on instruction scheduling. It gives me
warm fuzzies when I'm trying to decide "which support company will be
better at solving my problems?"

If _you_ don't find higher profits to be an incentive, I'm not sure
what you're looking for.
From: cgra@btma74.nohost.nodomain (Chris Gray)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:24:18 GMT
Reply-To: cgra@se.alcbel.be


In article <1993Jan25.185757.13915@uvm.edu>, wollman@trantor.emba.uvm.edu 
(Garrett Wollman) writes:

> In article <mwalker-250193094209@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com 
(Mel Walker) writes:


> >Clearly, the only reasonable alternative under a GNU-utopia would be to
> >take jobs in software maintenance.

> In case you haven't noticed, that's what most programmers are doing
> right now.

> -GAWollman

The great unpalatable truth.  Programmers love to think they are wonderfully
creative and innovative people who should be paid for creating and innovating
_new_programs_.  Most of the work waiting to be done consists of supporting 
and maintaining _existing_ programs.  That kind of work also requires creat-
ivity, innovation, imagination - but does not produce the kind of art object
which can be hung on the wall with a big sign saying "I made this!".

BTW some of things people want making or fixing are neither editors nor
C compilers.  When GNU start to muscle in on the ISDN packet handler or
automated directory assistance market just let me know, and I'll replan
my career path accordingly.

Just now I have to think about how to broadcast a firmware download to a
cluster of intelligent terminals with variable response times... bye...

Chris

__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray        | Any views expressed are those of the author and not of 
cgra@se.alcbel.be | Alcatel Bell, Technology Project Services, the British
Compu$erve:       | Computer Society, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Soc.,
100065.2102       | Scottish Youth Hostels Association, etc. etc. etc.
__________________________________________________________________________
A concept that cannot be expressed tersely is a badly understood concept.
                                                      - Chuck Moore
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.hp
From: huttar@hp750.itg.ti.com (Lars Huttar)
Subject: Re: Attaching gdb to a running process on an HP
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:44:54 GMT
	<1993Jan23.200540.10828@Princeton.EDU>
	<1993Jan24.205213.14915@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Organization: IEF Development, Texas Instruments Inc., Plano Texas
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at Texas Instruments Inc.
              The opinions expressed within are those of the user and not
              necessarily those of Texas Instruments.
                                                     

In article <1993Jan24.205213.14915@bmerh85.bnr.ca> Hamish.Macdonald@bnr.ca (Hamish Macdonald) writes:
> 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.
[...]

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.
Again, this is Precision Architecture HP's.  I dunno about others.

Lars Huttar, huttar@hp750.itg.ti.com           3
(Opinions herein are not               ||   _______           ____      ||
necessarily those of TI.)              ||:  |  |  |   |   |   |  |   | :|| Mars
For a good time, call gettimeofday().  ||  _| _| _|  _|  _|  _| _|  _|  ||