[OT] lcc-win32 and GNU

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by jacob navia, Oct 18, 2007.

  1. said:
    Depressing to find that you can't read. I haven't made a case either for or
    against what you call his "selfishness". All I have said is that we should
    not criticise someone simply for taking appropriate corrective action
    after realising that a mistake has been made. Okay, so you'd rather see
    him release the source. Well, it's clear that he isn't going to. That is
    his decision, not yours, mine, or anyone else's.
    Indeed. And he has chosen the latter. That is *his* choice to make, not
    yours or mine.
    Perhaps. But I think it more likely that he doesn't reveal his source code
    because he knows full well that it will not withstand expert scrutiny.
     
    Richard Heathfield, Oct 21, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. hah hah hah heee heee hoe hoe hah hah hee hah hah hah


    OK, OK, I've recovered (oops, I'm still ROTFL...)

    I believe the operative phrase here is: YHBT.

    (Good show, Heathfield, BTW)
     
    Kenny McCormack, Oct 21, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. jacob navia

    Richard Guest

    Here's an idea : why don't you publish everything YOU contribute to the
    OS community or simply **** off?
     
    Richard, Oct 21, 2007
    #23
  4. Wrong. The first Pascal compiler I ever did use (the original compiler
    from ETH Zuerich for CDC systems) did write out the binary directly, in
    a single pass. And I have known many compilers that *never* did use an
    assembler in whatever form.
     
    Dik T. Winter, Oct 22, 2007
    #24
  5. Would you feel better if Alan has explicitly used the implied word "most"
    in his statement?
     
    Kenny McCormack, Oct 22, 2007
    #25
  6. jacob navia

    rosewater Guest

    I didn't deny that it's his choice: my point was that he's exercized
    this choice in a foolish and selfish way.
    I'm sure there's truth in that too!
     
    rosewater, Oct 22, 2007
    #26
  7. jacob navia

    rosewater Guest

    Of course not. But as I'm sure you're aware, in these days where
    distributing software on the internet is so cheap and easy, free
    software developers make most of their money through support
    contracts. Obviously there's a big problem with that business model
    for Navia - he knows as much about C as my mother's cat. Even if he
    did get people to sign up to a support contract, it's unlikely they'd
    ever renew it: an emotional stream of abuse with little basis in
    technical knowledge is not exactly what you want from tech support,
    but if this group is anything to go by then that's just what Navia
    would provide.
     
    rosewater, Oct 22, 2007
    #27
  8. jacob navia

    Richard Bos Guest

    Stop replying to yourself.

    Richard
     
    Richard Bos, Oct 22, 2007
    #28
  9. Depends on how he defines most. Most compilers I have encountered did *not*
    use the assembler. The first compiler that did use assembler that I
    encountered was the C compiler on Unix vs. 6, but that was about 10 years
    after playing with many other compilers.
     
    Dik T. Winter, Oct 22, 2007
    #29
  10. jacob navia

    Richard Guest

    "Indeed. It is most unedifying behaviour to which one must object most
    profusely."
     
    Richard, Oct 22, 2007
    #30
  11. [On the few occasions in this reply where I have used the word "you", it
    refers to Richard Bos. Where I mean a more generic "you", I have used the
    appalling neologism "yougeneric".]

    Richard Bos said:
    I have not done so. I have no need to hide behind sock puppets. You have
    made the mistake of believing one of the group trolls.

    I have no idea who is, but I do know that he or
    she isn't me. Nor does he or she accurately reflect my views about Mr
    Navia's "contributions" to the comp.lang.c newsgroup. It is in fact the
    case that the opinion of about the actions Mr
    Navia describes as having taken re GPL in the OP on this thread appears to
    be diametrically opposed to my own opinion. It is a strange sock puppet
    (on Usenet, at least) that disagrees 100% with his purported puppetmaster.

    It appears to be fairly common practice among trolls in comp.lang.c
    nowadays to accuse regular contributors of setting up sock puppets to
    bolster the apparent popularity of their viewpoint. It is easy mud to
    sling, as any denial can be countered with the Mandy Rice-Davies quote,
    "well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" - and in the minds of fools, this
    is an effective riposte. What those who believe it fail to consider is
    that "he would say that" *whether or not* the accusation is true. So when
    a regular contributor is charged with sock puppetry, what yougeneric would
    be best advised to consider is not the nature of the attack, but rather
    what yougeneric know about the attacker and what yougeneric know about the
    attackee, so to speak. That is, the facts (one way or the other) are
    likely to be unprovable, so all yougeneric have to go on is the characters
    of those involved.

    In this case, the accusations of sock puppetry have come from a
    self-confessed troll (no, not you, Richard! I do not consider you to be a
    troll), which tells us all we need to know about the nature of the
    attacker - i.e. it is someone who has openly acknowledged that their
    purpose in posting to this newsgroup is to provoke angry responses, from
    which the troll presumably gets some kind of bizarre pleasure.

    So - what of the attackee?

    Sock puppets are used for bolstering a weak argument, usually on a matter
    of opinion rather than fact (since facts are normally so easy to
    establish, whereas opinions are much more susceptible to debate and
    apparent popularity). The intent of a sock puppetmaster, it would appear,
    is to suggest that there is more support for his views than is in fact the
    case.

    But, as regular readers of this newsgroup will be only too well aware, I am
    not, and never have been, particularly bothered about the apparent
    popularity of my views in this newsgroup. (Obviously it's pleasant for me
    to find that other people whom I respect agree with me, but it's even more
    pleasant when I find that they /dis/agree with me, because that means that
    I'm in with a chance of learning something.) And therefore I, speaking in
    my capacity as attackee, see no value whatsoever in having my views (very
    imperfectly) parroted by some random, nameless third party.

    In fact, I cannot recall any regular contributor whose knowledge of C I
    respect (which includes you, by the way) being bothered about popularity.
    We are more interested in being right than in being popular. Otherwise,
    we'd all be voiding main and fflushing stdin and getsing, wouldn't we?

    And therefore I treat with disbelief and disdain the accusations of trolls
    that such-and-such is using sock puppets, where "such-and-such" is someone
    like yourself, Keith, Jack, or others of that calibre. I find it
    surprising that you do not adopt the same policy.

    The obvious solution here is to treat the machinations of trolls with the
    respect or contempt that yougeneric, as an independent mind, feel they
    deserve.

    For the record, at least as far as I can recall, I have only *ever* posted
    to comp.lang.c under four names: the obvious three are "Richard
    Heathfield", "rjh" (three of the four bona fide initials of my name), and
    "Strangely Placed".

    The last of these is, to regulars, an obvious and mildly witty reference to
    a sig I've had for over eight years. I used "Strangely Placed" only very
    occasionally, to post to clc when away from my usual machine (which is why
    it was mildly witty, to those who appreciate such things). It was a Google
    Groups account, which has almost certainly lapsed, and which for clarity's
    sake I hereby announce that I will never, ever, ever use again - an easy
    target for pseudosockpuppetmasters, then, but hey, any fool can forge a
    header.

    (And the fourth? Well, I forget the fourth, as it was for just a few
    months, several years ago - I believe it was because I'd left my former
    ISP, and hadn't yet gotten around to setting up a new Web site yet, but it
    doesn't really matter. What does matter is that, during that time, I was
    not posting under any other name.)

    Again for the record: I have not, on this newsgroup or any other, ever used
    a sock puppet for any reason whatsoever. Nor will I ever do so.

    You, of all people, should know that I have been involved in very animated
    discussions (elseUsenet) where it would have been much more tempting to
    use a sock puppet than has ever been the case in comp.lang.c, and you
    should also know that I did not do so (because, as you will recall from
    those threads, what little support I got came from people you knew from
    long acquaintance not to be sock puppets). So what you are suggesting is
    against all common sense.

    If you still think I'm sock-puppeting, please explain why in a direct reply
    to this article (and please offer some genuine evidence to support your
    claim). Otherwise, naturally I will assume your silence to indicate
    acceptance ("qui tacet consentire videtur") of the points I have made in
    this article.
     
    Richard Heathfield, Oct 22, 2007
    #31
  12. Yes, Shari Lewis would be proud.
     
    Kenny McCormack, Oct 22, 2007
    #32
  13. (rest of stupid denial - clipped)

    Gee, a denial. Wow. Are we surprised?
     
    Kenny McCormack, Oct 22, 2007
    #33
  14. (Sung to the strains of Beethoven's Fifth)
    I am not gay. I did nothing wrong. I love my wife.
    (Idaho Sen. Larry Craig)
    Yeah, right.
     
    Kenny McCormack, Oct 22, 2007
    #34
  15. jacob navia

    Richard Guest

    Is it just me, or is RH becoming more & more "eloquent" with every
    post? I think he thinks he's Oscar Wilde or Laurence Olivier.
     
    Richard, Oct 22, 2007
    #35
  16. I forgot the opening bars. It starts with "Let me be clear..."
    (sung to the famous opening bars of the Fifth)
    Indeed.
     
    Kenny McCormack, Oct 22, 2007
    #36
  17. Though I have no direct evidence one way or the other, I firmly
    believe that "rosewater" is not a sock puppet for Richard Heathfield.
    In my opinion, you (RB) owe RH an apology.

    I've read RH's lengthy followup, but I formed this opinion before I
    read it.
     
    Keith Thompson, Oct 22, 2007
    #37
  18. jacob navia

    Alan Curry Guest

     
    Alan Curry, Oct 22, 2007
    #38
  19. jacob navia

    santosh Guest

     
    santosh, Oct 22, 2007
    #39
  20. jacob navia

    Alan Curry Guest

    There's no reason a serious competitor to the GNU compiler couldn't feed its
    output to the GNU assembler. (Not that I think a non-free x86-only compiler
    is a serious competitor)
     
    Alan Curry, Oct 22, 2007
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.