A good compiler

[Chris Hills]

Not /just/ his opinion.


Sure - but I suspect most people here would agree that any compiler
that emits diagnostics with valid code is screwed up.

Otherwise where do we draw the line ?

warning: "int" - you should use either short or long (or possibly long
long) as the size of an int is platform dependent and your code will
be hosed when you port to a 128-bit platform..

warning: 's' - you do realise this has different sizes in C and C++

warning: 'C' - this is a Fortran comment indicator, your code will
break if you crosscompile with Fortran

warning: "scunthorpe" - this identifier is obscene, reporting you to
the VGTF and Interpol

warning: "tee" - ambiguous identifier: darjeeling or lapsang ?

fatal: "windows" - this word is copyright, deleting your source code

ROTFL

But seriously, I thought the "safe" extensions to Standard library functions
that MS has proposed and implemented were approved by the C Standard
committee?[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately... Though only as a Technical Report NOT as part of the
standard.

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills said:

Perhaps you're right, and [Mr Navia] is mistaken in thinking that he
charges for his product. From his Web site:

"if you use it professionally you have to have to buy a licence."
[sic]

Is he wrong, then?

It's free to use otherwise.

Oh dear, Chris - so you're saying it's free except when it isn't? Fine,
but I think we kind of knew that already. Clearly, he derives (or is
trying to derive) an income from it.

Exactly the same as Linux

 

[Chris Hills]

[snips]

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware,

It is freeware it is just not FOSS. There are many types of licens fro
free SW.

it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

Is this his crime?

It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

So what?

So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

 

[Ian Collins]

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

Do we care? Why all the talk about Linux? Anyone would think it's the
only free opensource OS out there.

 

[Richard Bos]

[snips]

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware,
It is freeware it is just not FOSS. There are many types of licens fro
free SW.

it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

Is this his crime?

It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have
to have to buy a licence."

So what?

So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

None. You may have to pay for a nice package and a printed manual, but
nobody, regardless of what business you are in, has to pay for Linux or
gcc _itself_.
Besides, gcc is not the point. Nobody is advertising gcc here. jacob
_is_ posting unsolicited commercial posts about his compiler, which he
does derive income from.

Richard

 

[jacob navia]

[snips]

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a
product.

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware,
It is freeware it is just not FOSS. There are many types of licens fro
free SW.

it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

Is this his crime?

It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have
to have
to buy a licence."

So what?

So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

For instance this ones:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Platform
Standard Subscription 1 year 12x5 phone support, 1 year web, unlimited
incidents 1 499 $
Premium Subscription 1 year 24x7 phone support, 1 year web, unlimited
incidents 2 499 $


Raleigh, NC (Business Wire) - June 28, 2006 - Red Hat, Inc.
(NASDAQ:RHAT), the world's leading provider of open source solutions to
the enterprise, today announced financial results for the first quarter
of its fiscal 2007 year.

Total revenue for the quarter was $84.0 million, an increase of 38% from
the year ago quarter and 7% from the prior quarter. Subscription revenue
was $71.5 million, up 45% year-over-year and 7% sequentially.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Exactly the same as Linux

Not *exactly* the same, but concede that it's close enough for our
purposes.

The difference is that Linus Torvalds, and the folks at Red Hat, and
the employees, owners, etc., of the companies that produce all the
other Linux distributions *don't advertise them in comp.lang.c*.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

For someone around here to stop lying by saying "It's free" when it isn't;
it is only occasionally free.

Can you either back up that statement or withdraw it...

Already did, three times over:

Once by quoting the relevant text from the site;
Once by having Navia admit he uses it for revenue generation, and...

Jacob how many free downloads compared to paid ones (as a %)

....by _you_ admitting it's sold for money.

So, we're all clear on this; it's a for-profit product, which he hawks
here instead of doing the proper thing and using proper marketing
channels. That makes him a spammer - and anyone who offers a blanket
"it's free" a liar.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware,

It is. It is just not FOSS

It is? Fine; where do I get my legitimate free copy to use commercially?

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

So where do I get legitimate free copies for commercial use? If it isn't
free across the board, then all you're doing with it here is a glorified
sales pitch, in a forum where advertising doesn't belong and isn't wanted
- in short, you're a spammer.

Who would want to use a product offered by such degenerate low-lifes
as spammers isn't clear, but it sure as heck isn't me.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

*What* are they? Don't know, don't care. The relevant point is *where*
are they, and more specifically, noting that they are *not* here, being
flaunted by their developers for financial gain.

Navia's a spammer, plain and simple. One hopes his account will be yanked
for abuse.

 

[jacob navia]

So where do I get legitimate free copies for commercial use? If it isn't
free across the board, then all you're doing with it here is a glorified
sales pitch, in a forum where advertising doesn't belong and isn't wanted
- in short, you're a spammer.

Who would want to use a product offered by such degenerate low-lifes
as spammers isn't clear, but it sure as heck isn't me.

Excuse me. I will add a new clause.

It is free for non commercial use except for Mr Bjarnason.

Happy?

And please put me in your killfile, so you can safely ignore
posts from such a "low life" as me.

 

[jacob navia]

[snips]

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

*What* are they? Don't know, don't care. The relevant point is *where*
are they, and more specifically, noting that they are *not* here,

A search for "linux" in the *subject* line in comp.lang.c
yields 48 hits in my machine...

Not searching of course all those that have
linux related material in the text!

being
flaunted by their developers for financial gain.



Navia's a spammer, plain and simple. One hopes his account will be yanked
for abuse.

You can always hope

A search for lcc-win32 in the subject line yields zero.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

Clearly, [Mr Navia] derives (or is trying to derive) an income
from [lcc-win32].

Exactly the same as Linux

Are you saying Mr Navia derives an income from the sale or support of
Linux? Or that I do? Or that someone else in clc is? If none of these,
how is it relevant?

 

[Rui Maciel]

Can you either back up that statement or withdraw it...

Jacob how many free downloads compared to paid ones (as a %)

I think you will find it is usually free and occasionally paid for.

In that case it is easy to see that it isn't actually free ware, is it? It
is, mind you, occasionally free ware. Which isn't the same as free ware, in
the true sense of the word and not a bastardized interpretation of it. In
fact, in some countries any person can use every software product under the
sun without buying anything or paying any license, as long as it's for
personal use only. That means that in those countries, which follow the
french tradition of copyright, every software product should be considered
freeware. That doesn't make sense.

Therefore it is easy to see that that Kelsey Bjarnason is right on this one.
Freeware is supposed to be free, not X% free and only under certain
circunstances.


Rui Maciel

 

[Rui Maciel]

Can you either back up that statement or withdraw it...

Jacob how many free downloads compared to paid ones (as a %)

I think you will find it is usually free and occasionally paid for.

In that case it is easy to see that it isn't actually free ware, is it? It
is, mind you, occasionally free ware. Which isn't the same as free ware, in
the true sense of the word and not a bastardized interpretation of it. In
fact, in some countries any person can use every software product under the
sun without buying anything or paying any license, as long as it's for
personal use only. That means that in those countries, which follow the
french tradition of copyright, every software product should be considered
freeware. That doesn't make sense.

Therefore it is easy to see that that Kelsey Bjarnason is right on this one.
Freeware is supposed to be free, not X% free and only under certain
circunstances.


Rui Maciel

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

And please put me in your killfile, so you can safely ignore
posts from such a "low life" as me.

It is, of course, to Mr Navia's commercial advantage for as many of his
critics as possible to killfile him. No doubt this is why he encourages
them so to do.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

A search for "linux" in the *subject* line in comp.lang.c
yields 48 hits in my machine...

So what? Newbies asking Linux questions is hardly a new phenomenon here.
Nor are redirections of such newbies to more appropriate groups.

 

[Richard]

jacob navia said:



It is, of course, to Mr Navia's commercial advantage for as many of his
critics as possible to killfile him. No doubt this is why he encourages
them so to do.

Calling people "Mr" doesn't add any credence to your ridiculously
puerile and vindictive witch hunts.

Interestingly enough, I see you advertise your commercial licenses for
your code on your web page. To which you link with every post.

,----
| You will also find a copy of my CLINT library, which is available under
| the GPL. (It is available on a commercial basis as well, in case you'd
| prefer not to be bound by the GPL.)
`----

So not much difference from Jacob then.

Except you openly solicit payment:

,----
| 3) The "we did a deal" licence, which is much less restrictive than the
| GPL, but which involves contacting me and sending me money. To use the
| library "as is" on a non-exclusive commercial basis, with no obligation
| to release your own source code to the Open Source community, will cost
| you 150 (one hundred and fifty pounds sterling) per computer on
| which the library is installed (for the current version, 1.0i; future
| releases will be more expensive). Contact me for details of how to make
| payment. This fee does not include support; I am prepared to support the
| library, of course, but the fee I will charge you for that depends on
| just how much support you need.
`----

Nice page on portability btw.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

Interestingly enough, I see you advertise your commercial licenses for
your code on your web page. To which you link with every post.

In my sig block, yes. That's (partly) what they're for. From RFC 1855:

"In order to ensure that people know who you are, be sure to include a
line or two at the end of your message with contact information. You
can create this file ahead of time and add it to the end of your
messages. (Some mailers do this automatically.) In Internet parlance,
this is known as a ".sig" or "signature" file. Your .sig file takes the
place of your business card."

If Mr Navia wishes to advertise lcc-win32 in a properly-constructed sig
block, I doubt very much whether anybody here will object. I certainly
won't. Such objections would be groundless.

For the record, Chris Dollin advertises Hewlett-Packard in his sig
block. Chris Torek advertises Wind River Systems in his. Keith Thompson
advertises the San Diego Computer Center in his. And various other
people here link to their own sites in their sig block. That's basic
business-card-style information. Nothing wrong with that. That is one
of the reasons that we have sig blocks.

Incidentally, thanks for reminding me about CLINT. It needs to go. The
design is appalling.

[SFX: rumble thunder groan]

It's gone. CLINT is no more. It is ex libris.

Now then - you were saying?