home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!ericom!eos.ericsson.se!etxmesa
- From: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon)
- Subject: Re: Rating of gcc in Unix Review
- Message-ID: <1992Jul30.095301.6631@ericsson.se>
- Sender: news@ericsson.se
- Nntp-Posting-Host: eos6c02.ericsson.se
- Reply-To: etxmesa@eos.ericsson.se (Michael Salmon)
- Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
- References: <156eo7INN6d3@betty.cs.widener.edu> <29JUL199218375075@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:53:01 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <29JUL199218375075@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
- dc@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Cottingham) writes:
- |> I don't regularly read the Unix Review, but my impression from the odd
- |> issue I have read is that it, like many computing periodicals, is
- |> targeted at the computer illiterate. Given that, the approach is not
- |> so strange. I think a typical CI would find it excessively challenging
- |> to compile the compiler or to figure out how to read texinfo documentation.
- |> For them, I think GCC as it comes off of prep is not a good choice.
- |> After all, the FSF was never intended as a hand-holding organization.
- |> AS someone else already pointed out, a GCC distribution from Cygnus
- |> would have been a better choice.
-
- I built gcc 2.1 on a Sun3 from scratch, I printed out the INSTALL
- document, read it carefully, followed it step by step and I had no
- problems. I have never tried with 1.x so I can't comment but I think
- that a barely literate user could install 2.x without too much trouble.
- In fact most of the FSF products are boringly simple to install these
- days (emacs and epoch not included).
-
- --
-
- Michael Salmon
-
- #include <standard.disclaimer>
- #include <witty.saying>
- #include <fancy.pseudo.graphics>
-
- Ericsson Telecom AB
- Stockholm
-