home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!taronga!peter
- From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
- Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
- Message-ID: <2R1JJPG@taronga.com>
- Organization: Taronga Park BBS
- References: <1992Sep4.234429.18294@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <QG0JYC1@taronga.com> <1992Sep06.065525.8475@kithrup.COM>
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:49:22 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <1992Sep06.065525.8475@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
- >In article <QG0JYC1@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
- >>You're assuming that "posix compliant" means anything actually useful.
- >>From what I've seen it's seriously incomplete for any real applications,
- >>and so amounts to no more than a checkmark on a requirements sheet.
-
- >I don't know about that. gcc, gas, GNU make, the GNU binutils (and,
- >perforce, the GNU BFD library) can all be built in a POSIX-only environment.
-
- That makes perfect sense, since they're hackerware. All they do is file
- translation, and the only OS services they need are reading and writing
- files. Of course the code generator for GCC is system specific, and gas
- needs to know the instruction set and details of the executable format.
-
- >Those are real applications, after all.
-
- They're tools, not applications. Applications are the things people buy
- the computers for. Apart from developers, people rarely buy computers
- for compilers. And developers need support for the code they're developing.
- --
- `-_-'
- Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U`
-
- Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032
-