HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 9 Jan 1993 22:11:32 -0800
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net

In article <C0Lt7D.Jy2@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk> joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey) writes:
>Further, I can walk into *any* bookshop and buy books about WP/123/Corel
>et al.  I can contact *any* "training/educational" firm for help.
>GNU?  *Now*, I cannot.

Yes, you can.  You should be able to buy a book on Perl at bookstores,
and you can buy the GNU EMACS books from the FSF (I *think* there might
be a book on emacs published by O'Reilly & Associates, but I'm not sure,
so I won't say more than that :)).

>   - Cygnus: too expensive for day-to-day Oleo support (just a guess...)

Cygnus sold support for gcc under Solaris2 for $2k initially ($3k afterwards);
that was the same price as the sunsoft license for, what, one to five
users?

>Again:  What use is Linux to someone who just wants to run spreadsheets
>        or Word Processing?
>        I say: "None - there's no support."

There is currently not a market for it without support.  BSDI is trying
for that area, as well, and is, I gather, having problems (admittedly,
the lawsuit is part of it).

If there is a large-enough market for it, then Cygnus, or some other
set of people, would probably be quite happy to support a free OS.  However,
getting into the OS business is *hard*:  most workstations come with
their own OS, and SCO and USL have the x86 market tied up pretty well.
It's not *impossible*, but it's very hard to do it without an established
base.  (Watch how NeXT does in the PC market, for example, even though
they *do* have an established base of sorts.)
From: rsm@math.arizona.edu (Robert S. Maier)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 11 Jan 93 07:28:09 GMT
Organization: Mathematics Department, University of Arizona
In-reply-to: tyrell@herring.micro.umn.edu's message of 10 Jan 93 06:23:19 GMT

John Drexler writes the following about GNU software:

        You are doing the equivalent to what the Japanese microchip
        industry did to the United States counterpart: dumping. Every time
        you create a software product, and give it out -- free -- to the
        public, some private software developer is taking the brunt of it.

There's a amusing parable, written in the 19th century by a fellow
named Frederic Bastiat (a proponent of free trade), which knocks the
stuffing out of John's argument.

Bastiat pointed out that there was (and is!) a great deal of dumping going
on every day: the Sun shines its radiance on planet Earth, thereby
providing everyone with free illumination.  In the process, a lot of
private providers of illumination (in Bastiat's day, candlemakers and such)
get burned.

Bastiat's tongue-in-cheek solution: pass a law to force all windows to be
boarded up!  This would keep out all the `dumped' sunlight, and put the
private illumination providers back in business.

I gather that a good many people took the point, and realized that
`dumping' can only help, never harm, a nation.  And the same can be said of
GNU software.

-- 
Robert S. Maier   | Internet: rsm@math.arizona.edu, rsm@cs.arizona.edu
Dept. of Math.    | UUCP: uunet!arizona!amethyst!rsm
Univ. of Arizona  | Bitnet: maier@arizvms
Tucson, AZ  85721 | FAX: +1 602 621 8322
U.S.A.            | Voice: +1 602 621 6893 (dept.), +1 602 621 2617 (office)
From: ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:10:17 GMT
Organization: Infinity Development, Waltham, MA

ciaran@ulysse.enst.fr (Ciaran O'Donnell) writes:

>However, the Gnu Public License (GPL) and the notion of "copyleft" is in
>itself a perversion of the legal system. Take a good look at the GPL and
>then compare it to any other licence (Microsoft, ATT). The "software hoarders"
>license are much less constraining and paranoid than the GPL. Nor is this
>the result of FSF "ideological diarrhea." The FSF licenses are written by
>lawyers, good lawyers at that.

I think you're letting your argument run away with you.  My license
for Microsoft Word doesn't even let me copy the program more than
once.  There is not one thing it permits that the GPL does not also
permit.
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
`` `The world can grow into an ordered place where all are equal before
    the law.  And the law is just.  Honest.  Without graft.'
   `Is that so important if you are starving?' ''
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sja@snakemail.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara)
Subject: Re: Public Domain C Compiler?
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 08 Jan 93 16:28:52 GMT


> I've seen a few posts here [...] I have doubts to their dedication
> to the project.

Well, "dedication"...  I've been writing a free C compiler as a
hobby.  I can't guarantee eternal "dedication"; so far I've stuck
with it.  It really is an interesting and challenging project.

The front end is 95% done (doesn't it always seem like your programs
are 95% finished?); a back end is early stages of construction.

(With suitable definitions of "back end" & "front end".)

An ANSI C test suite (way over 50% of my effort so far) is shaping
up very nicely.

If you want a compiler in a shiny plastic wrapper, a glossy
manual with pictures of cute furry animals explaining its use,
delivered to your door by Federal Express -- shop elsewhere.

> Writing a compiler is a daunting project

"Daunting" is a bit strong; it's not _that_ difficult.  Depends;
if you want to put in every conceivable optimization and port
it to everything from vector processors to toasters...

A reasonably reliable (better than what you usually get in UN*X)
compiler with a couple of back ends is certainly doable.

> Writing a portable compiler, even more so.

This isn't *too* bad either.  Depends on the machine specific
optimizations you want to do; code generation is not that
difficult given the research that has been published over the
last 10..15 years.

Debugging information is a pain.  I don't think I'll be able
to do that for more than a few machines by myself.

Otherwise, I'd venture to guess that the portability problems
of e.g. tcsh are far greater than those of a well written compiler.

> it becomes quite a logistic problem to try to incorporate changes
> into the original compiler in a coherent manner.

Depends...  If you just want to merge machine dependent changes (code
generator generator descriptions etc) it isn't too bad.  If you
incorporate optimizations and language extensions you'll have more
work.

Incorporating changes you can't test is a lot of work but others
seem to be coping (tcsh? elm?)  I'm looking forward to it if I
ever get there.

You know, there is a theory that says that free software tends to be
easy to maintain because there are so many people who can help with it.
If the original authors can't continue working on it, the theory says
someone else can adopt it.  Maybe that is even true!

> I just really doubt one person could do it and remain sane

Thanks a lot, sunshine :-)  I've always been halfway over the hill
so this doesn't bother me.
									++sja
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
	<1993Jan6.161245.4926@umr.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:26:28 GMT

Michael R Castle writes:

   Writing a compiler is a daunting project (ask the FSF!).  Writing a portable
   compiler, even more so.  

There is LCC from princeton. The backends [that optimize as well
or better as GCC] are not available except by special educational
arrangement, but one can [for example] adapt arizona PO as a
backend...

here is the README. 

... oz


    lcc is a retargetable compiler for C as defined by the ANSI Standard
    X3.159-1989. lcc is in production use at Princeton University and
    AT&T Bell Laboratories.
    
    The public distribution directory contains the following files.
    
    README  this file.
    
    install.{tex,ps}
            describes the distribution and gives installation
            instructions.  install.ps is the PostScript generated from
            the LaTeX input install.tex, which is also included in
            the distribution.
    
    lccfe-X.Y.tar.Z
            a compressed tar file for the `Front-end' distribution of
            version X.Y, e.g., lccfe-1.9.tar.Z.  This distribution
            includes the front end, the driver program, a demonstration
            VAX code generator, a `symbolic' code generator, a test
            suite, and user documentation.
    
    The distribution is available via `anonymous' ftp from princeton.edu
    (128.112.128.1) in the directory pub/lcc. Obtaining and extracting the
    distribution into its own directory is accomplished by the following
    commands. Replace `1.9' with the latest version, which is the only one
    typically available; versions like `1.9a' identify minor updates. As
    suggested, use your login as the password, and use ftp's binary
    transfer mode.
    
    mkdir lcc
    cd lcc
    ftp princeton.edu
    anonymous
    yourlogin
    cd pub/lcc
    binary
    get lccfe-1.9.tar.Z dist.tar.Z
    quit
    zcat dist.tar | tar xpof -
    rm dist.tar.Z
    
    To be added to the lcc mailing list, send your preferred electronic
    mail address to lcc-requests@princeton.edu.
    
    Production code generators for the VAX, MIPS, and Motorola 68020 are
    available for research use to universities willing to execute a license
    agreement. Contact Chris Fraser (cwf@research.att.com) for details.
    These code generators are automatically generated from compact
    specifications, but neither the specifications nor their processor is
    available, only the generated code generators.
    
    1/3/93
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4211 talk.philosophy.misc:3162 alt.usage.english:10273 alt.society.anarchy:1024
From: jwe@bongo.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Eaton)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:12:08 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: bongo.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan11.144521.19192@husc3.harvard.edu>
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

> By the same token, should they release their programs into the public
> domain, the FSF would *gain* the support of many people currently
> disagreeing with the GPL.

No kidding.  I suspect all those who would like to get something for
nothing by creating proprietary versions of Emacs, gcc, and other GNU
software would be dancing in the streets.

--
John W. Eaton      | 4.3BSD is not perfect.  -- Leffler, et al. (1989).
jwe@che.utexas.edu |
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: peterd@pjd.dev.cdx.mot.com (Peter Desnoyers)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Motorola Codex, Canton, Massachusetts
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:33:37 GMT

friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:

>In article <1993Jan2.215318.18942@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>FSF does not give away its CD-ROM or distribution tapes;
>>but up until this time, it has been able to explain charging for them
>>as "distribution fees"; with the introduction of the differential
>>pricing scheme for individuals and businesses, this explanation no
>>longer holds any water.

>Actually, our original plan was to charge $500 for the CD-ROM plain and
>simple.  But we realized that while this isn't unaffordable for most
>companies, it is for most individuals.  We decided we'd rather get a
>smaller amount from individuals than get nothing at all, so we chose to
>charge individuals a smaller amount, namely $100.  (We also changed the
>original $500 to $400 for businesses.)

>Lots of organizations charge different rates for their services depending
>on who you are. 

Sometimes businesses pay more, sometimes less. For instance, business
travelers pay far more for hotel rooms and air fare than normal people
who get 30-day advance tickets. Conversely, if you walk into a
hospital with cash you'll pay a lot more than an insurance company for
the same care, because you can't negotiate the same contract.

Also, one argument that hasn't been brought up is that businesses are
much worse about actually paying for something than individuals are.
Even if the person who ordered the software *wants* to pay for it,
there may be ten people between there and the actual person who mails
the check, each with the ability to screw things up, requiring long
hours on the phone to fix. If you can get away with it, charging
businesses double to make up for the additional collection difficulty
is probably a good idea.

				Peter Desnoyers
--
From: fgray@cardinal.ncsc.org (Frederick E Gray)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss 
Organization: North Carolina Supercomputing Center
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:12:18 GMT

In <1993Jan5.022956.19008@husc3.harvard.edu>, <zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu> (Michael Zeleny) writes:
 
>>So, what you're basically saying is that since you are not free to
>>make it non-free, it is not "free" (as has already been mentioned in
>>this thread, all these "free"s are not referring to cost, but rather
>>to freedom of use).
 
>Nonsense.  What I am saying is that I am not free to use GNU in any way
>I see fit; more importantly, nor am I free of legal obligation implicit
>in, and specific to its use.  Consequently, it is not free.  Is this so
>hard to understand?
 
It is ridiculous to claim that a "freedom" must entail no obligations. Every
liberty that is possessed by the people of the pluralistic nations of the world
is limited to some extent by a corresponding responsibility.  For example, the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no
law ... abridging the freedom of speech...." However, it is a well-known
principle that it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a public place that is not
actually ablaze.  Furthermore, the press in the United States and in many other
societies is allegedly "free."  However, it is limited by libel laws and
intellectual property considerations.
 
In other words, it is possible and indeed necessary for freedom to be
restricted for the common good of the people.  The English word "free" has come
to embody this connotation.  Therefore, the Free Software Foundation is using
this word in _exactly the same way_ as it is customarily used.  If that is not
the usage which Michael Zeleny prefers, then he is not speaking the same
language as the rest of us.
 
-- Fred Gray
-- fgray@cardinal.ncsc.org
-- my personal opinions only

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Summary: oh, my!
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:22:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.144521.19192@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>Although I prefer not to bother with philippics, ...

umph;  chortle; GUFFAW, o HAHAHHAHAHAHAH -- stop it, Mikail,
you're killing me; hehehehehehe; chuckle; groan; ..
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 09:12:03 EST
From: <WDH2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Curve Fitting Program Anyone?

I'm not sure if this is the correct group to ask this but....

Is there a non-linear curve fitting program out there for unix
(I have an IBM RS6K aix3.2.2) that will use a user defined function
to fit to an experimentally obtained curve?  Also the program should use
aMarquart-Levenberg type of iteration process.

Thanks in advance

Lou Reynaldo
Department of Chemistry
The Pennsylvania State University
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Independent Network (UK)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:23:08 GMT

In article <BASHFORD.93Jan7194947@zippy.scripps.edu> bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:
>
>But if, say, a good PC word processer were released with a GPL, I suspect
>it would do well.

What would it give "users" that shareware/freeware wouldn't?

Except for "problems" of course...  And they'd need a compiler...

>crack down.  I think think these millions of "pirates" would welcome
>a useful program that they could legally use, copy and share even
>without any formal vendor support (which they don't have as "pirates"
>anyway).

Sorry, I doubt it.  They can buy a book for 20-50 pounds/dollars.

>noah> We'll see if Oleo takes off when it gets into better shape. 
>Is there a WISYWYG word processor in the works?

Would it be relevant?  Could I walk into the local book store for a manual?
Would my local "application guru" know how to run it?

Wouldn't pirating 1-2-3 just be much less hassle?

Go figure.

>Don Bashford

joe.
-- 
Joe Sharkey      joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk      ...!uunet!ibmpcug!jshark!joe
150 Hatfield Rd, St Albans, Herts AL1 4JA, UK        Got a real domain name
(+44) 727 838662           Mail/News Feeds (v32/v32bis): info@inet-uk.co.uk
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4294 talk.philosophy.misc:3204 misc.legal:22166
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 9 Jan 1993 15:12:07 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu


In article <1993Jan9.025025.19137@husc3.harvard.edu>
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>
> Regarding the touchy issue of magic changes of existing documents, I
> advise you to ask Stallman about the contents of the original,
> pre-FSF text of "The GNU Manifesto".  Better yet, go to the library
> and look it up.

The "GNU Manifesto" is not a legal document.  The GPL is a published
legal document, of which there are probably at least several million
copies.  Given that it is included in almost every FSF distribution,
and that people regularly `diff' different versions of a program, any
change is likely to be noticed by many people.

If you're sufficiently paranoid, it surely must have occured to you
that you could ask the FSF to send you a notarized copy of the GPL, to
compare against later copies.

-- 
 \  /   Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
 /\ \   PGP public key available on request.  MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme  White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:26:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1iqervINNcp5
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>This is the free market in action.  Joe Schmoe has been out-competed.  If
>he can write a word processor that is worth $129.95 more to the end user
>than Gnu Emacs is, he can sell it.  The effect of FSF at this point is
>to place a floor under the level of crap that the software industry can
>unload on users; you can't sell a compiler that is vastly worse than gcc
>for very long anymore.  This is good for the end user.  It may be bad news
>for the budding young software capitalist, but the world doesn't owe you
>a living.  

It's not clear that things would work well at the logical end of this,
when programmers all make their living selling support for GPL'ed software,
rather than writing proprietary software.

What is my incentive to write new GPL'ed software?  Sure, I can sell support
for it, but so can other programmers.  Their cost in reading and understanding
my source sufficiently to support it is, I would guess, less than my
development costs.  I am better off *NOT* writing the new code, and instead
concentrating on learning to support other programmers' new code.

OK, so some user will come along and pay me to write new software?
But to them, software is just a tool that they use in their business.
Isn't it going to be in their interest to ask me to develop for them
a proprietary version?

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.mips,alt.cd-rom
From: rick@cxbne.cx.OZ.AU (Ulrich Mack)
Subject: Re: CD-ROM ISO 9660 format...can my system deal with it?
Organization: Comperex Australia Pty Limited
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:46:48 GMT


In article <C0Ez6A.LDE@dweomer.org>, brian@dweomer.org (Brian Taylor) writes:
> I'm interested in ordering the GNU CD-ROM that was just released, but
> due to some articles in comp.sys.mips a while ago, I'm concerned that
> my system (a MIPS MAGNUM 4000-PC50 running RISCos 5.0B) couldn't deal
> with the format. Specifically, I read somewhere that the CD-ROM that
> came with some (all?) MIPs systems is only for distributing their own
> media and almost useless for other things.
> 
> Can anyone confirm or deny this? Also, if anyone has any information
> on incorporating an ISO-9660 filesystem into my kernel, that would also
> be most appreciated (thus the Xpost to alt.cd-rom)!
> 
> Thank you kindly,
> 
> Brian
> -- 
> Brian Taylor			UUCP:		uunet.ca!dweomer!brian
> 62 Derry Street		Internet:	brian@dweomer.org
> Guelph, Ontario, CANADA	Voice:		(519) 824-0884
> N1E 2C1

MIPS made an effort to support ISO-9660 format cdroms with an IPG product
(IP6047) which used a Sony CDU-6211 drive, a modified common_scsi.o to
support cdrom drives on the SCSI bus and appropriate device nodes etc.

This product worked just fine with RISCos 4.52, allowing the host computer
to access ISO-9660 (and Rockridge format) cdroms. You could also export the
cdrom to other MIPS systems. There was only one problem with the product,
it mounted the local drive foreign, so that it couldn't be exported using
NFS, but had to use PFS. While PFS is relatively much more efficient than NFS
in terms of read speed etc, it meant that only other MIPS systems configured to
use PFS could access the cdrom.

I believe that the inclusion of PFS support in RISCos 5.0 would supply at
least part of the answer w.r.t. cdroms on MIPS machines. I don't know if
the ISO-9660/PFS support is available as yet. Ask SGI/MIPS.

----------------------------------------------

Ulrich Mack
Comperex Systems
rick@cxbne.cx.oz.au