Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #126371 > unrolled thread
| Started by | shinobi@f153.n1.z21.fsxnet (shinobi) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-02-07 11:14 +1200 |
| Last post | 2018-02-08 19:58 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 67 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Good C compiler for WIN64 shinobi@f153.n1.z21.fsxnet (shinobi) - 2018-02-07 11:14 +1200
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-07 14:04 +0100
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-07 09:52 -0800
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-07 18:24 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 shinobi@f153.n1.z21.fsxnet (shinobi) - 2018-02-07 16:10 +1200
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-07 13:48 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-02-08 01:41 -0600
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-02-08 01:44 -0600
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-02-07 21:18 +0100
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 shinobi@f153.n1.z21.fsxnet (shinobi) - 2018-02-08 08:22 +1200
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-08 10:40 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-02-08 00:06 +0800
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 shinobi@f153.n1.z21.fsxnet (shinobi) - 2018-02-08 08:21 +1200
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-08 10:36 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-02-08 03:49 -0800
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Robbie Hatley <loneSNIPwolf@wellCUT.com> - 2018-02-08 03:22 -0800
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-02-08 04:05 -0800
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-08 12:32 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-08 12:40 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-08 14:36 +0100
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Robbie Hatley <loneSNIPwolf@wellCUT.com> - 2018-02-08 09:47 -0800
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-02-08 10:33 -0800
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-09 10:33 +0100
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-09 10:48 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-09 11:18 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-09 15:24 +0100
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 12:56 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 15:44 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 16:13 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 17:36 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 18:15 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 18:27 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 18:42 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 20:03 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 20:23 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 20:58 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 21:13 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 21:40 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 22:22 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 23:39 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-11 01:07 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-11 01:23 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-11 01:38 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-11 01:42 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-11 10:58 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-02-11 03:17 -0800
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-11 11:33 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-11 14:21 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-11 15:05 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-11 17:08 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-12 22:32 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 18:26 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 20:02 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-02-10 14:45 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2018-02-10 16:42 +0100
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-02-11 08:16 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2018-02-11 13:48 +0100
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-02-11 15:42 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2018-02-11 18:44 +0100
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-02-12 15:39 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-11 16:26 +0100
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-10 09:50 +1300
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-02-08 12:21 -0800
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-08 22:52 +0000
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-02-09 10:01 -0800
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2018-02-08 20:16 +0100
Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-08 19:58 +0000
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 01:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oHMfC.847254$pP1.588292@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #126549 |
On 10/02/2018 23:39, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 10/02/2018 21:40, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>>> I've seen more than a few open source projects where you can't compile >>>> the source code unless you first run some scripts to generate >>>> essential headers or other chunks of the C source. The source code for >>>> those tools is not usually provided. >>> >>> I would hesitate to call them open-source projects then (unless it was >>> simply an oversight or user error, of course). I can't think of any >>> reason to do this deliberately. Are you sure it was not simply and >>> mistake? Are there any you can remember? >> >> Most of the them I think! > > Must be a Windows thing or something particular to you maybe. Most of > them work for me, but then almost everything on my system is > automatically built form source packages (not by me, of course). If it's just for creating a binary of an already working program, then it probably doesn't matter how that's achieved, or if what you have is the true source as used by the developers. (For example take the amalgamated sqlite source which comes up in another thread.) The C sources I've provided were primarily for that purpose. >> A simple example is Tiny C. This won't compile as config.h is >> missing. Some configure script has to generate it. > > Yes, that's normal. Can you remember the package i.e. can you say where > you got the source without the configure script (it can probably be > easily fixed)? On that one I think the config.h file might have been created with an echo command in a make file. (I don't have the original sources to hand.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 01:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87wozkjp4p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #126550 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 10/02/2018 23:39, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 10/02/2018 21:40, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>>>> I've seen more than a few open source projects where you can't compile >>>>> the source code unless you first run some scripts to generate >>>>> essential headers or other chunks of the C source. The source code for >>>>> those tools is not usually provided. >>>> >>>> I would hesitate to call them open-source projects then (unless it was >>>> simply an oversight or user error, of course). I can't think of any >>>> reason to do this deliberately. Are you sure it was not simply and >>>> mistake? Are there any you can remember? >>> >>> Most of the them I think! >>> A simple example is Tiny C. This won't compile as config.h is >>> missing. Some configure script has to generate it. >> >> Yes, that's normal. Can you remember the package i.e. can you say where >> you got the source without the configure script (it can probably be >> easily fixed)? > > On that one I think the config.h file might have been created with an > echo command in a make file. (I don't have the original sources to > hand.) I'm getting confused. What software was missing from the tcc sources you are referring to? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 01:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <A8NfC.740339$6P.33571@fx13.am4> |
| In reply to | #126553 |
On 11/02/2018 01:23, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 10/02/2018 23:39, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 10/02/2018 21:40, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>> I've seen more than a few open source projects where you can't compile >>>>>> the source code unless you first run some scripts to generate >>>>>> essential headers or other chunks of the C source. The source code for >>>>>> those tools is not usually provided. >>>>> >>>>> I would hesitate to call them open-source projects then (unless it was >>>>> simply an oversight or user error, of course). I can't think of any >>>>> reason to do this deliberately. Are you sure it was not simply and >>>>> mistake? Are there any you can remember? >>>> >>>> Most of the them I think! > >>>> A simple example is Tiny C. This won't compile as config.h is >>>> missing. Some configure script has to generate it. >>> >>> Yes, that's normal. Can you remember the package i.e. can you say where >>> you got the source without the configure script (it can probably be >>> easily fixed)? >> >> On that one I think the config.h file might have been created with an >> echo command in a make file. (I don't have the original sources to >> hand.) > > I'm getting confused. What software was missing from the tcc sources > you are referring to? Tcc was a just a trivial example where you couldn't compile until you ran some program to generate an essential bit part of the source code. In this case a one-line header file created by a script. If you tried 'gcc tcc.c' it wouldn't work. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 01:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87lgg0jo8l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #126555 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 11/02/2018 01:23, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 10/02/2018 23:39, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 10/02/2018 21:40, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>> I've seen more than a few open source projects where you can't compile >>>>>>> the source code unless you first run some scripts to generate >>>>>>> essential headers or other chunks of the C source. The source code for >>>>>>> those tools is not usually provided. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would hesitate to call them open-source projects then (unless it was >>>>>> simply an oversight or user error, of course). I can't think of any >>>>>> reason to do this deliberately. Are you sure it was not simply and >>>>>> mistake? Are there any you can remember? >>>>> >>>>> Most of the them I think! >> >>>>> A simple example is Tiny C. This won't compile as config.h is >>>>> missing. Some configure script has to generate it. >>>> >>>> Yes, that's normal. Can you remember the package i.e. can you say where >>>> you got the source without the configure script (it can probably be >>>> easily fixed)? >>> >>> On that one I think the config.h file might have been created with an >>> echo command in a make file. (I don't have the original sources to >>> hand.) >> >> I'm getting confused. What software was missing from the tcc sources >> you are referring to? > > Tcc was a just a trivial example where you couldn't compile until you > ran some program to generate an essential bit part of the source > code. In this case a one-line header file created by a script. > > If you tried 'gcc tcc.c' it wouldn't work. I see, user error. You were just having a laugh. My apologies for taking your remark seriously. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 10:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <blVfC.707047$043.633779@fx27.am4> |
| In reply to | #126556 |
On 11/02/2018 01:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> If you tried 'gcc tcc.c' it wouldn't work. > > I see, user error. You were just having a laugh. My apologies for > taking your remark seriously. I've no idea what you're on about now. Is this all this just an attempt to prove me wrong one way or another? The subthread is about what is true source and what isn't. If I submit the source-code pcc64.c for my interpreter, you can compile it easily and run that program, but it apparently doesn't count as true source. If you take the collection of .c/.h files used by CPython, you can't compile them because it relies on a million things needing to be done first. But apparently that /is/ true source even though it uses so many tools to develop it. The Tiny C example is a trivial example of the latter. Which is exactly what I said to start with: "A simple example is Tiny C. This won't compile as config.h is missing." ---------------------- (With CPython, you used to need gcc and a hundred utilities from Linux to build it even on Windows, where it was known to be tricky to do. The first thing was to run a 20,000 line configure script. Now, for Windows, it relies on MSVC. And VS2015. And .NET. And MSBUILD. And Git. And SVN (all extra downloads). I know all this because I tried following the instructions and it still wouldn't work. If this is 'open source' then give me a break.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 03:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <295a3047-0cd7-4876-b99c-cd2b6dc70f55@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #126566 |
On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 10:58:23 AM UTC, Bart wrote: > On 11/02/2018 01:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > >> If you tried 'gcc tcc.c' it wouldn't work. > > > > I see, user error. You were just having a laugh. My apologies for > > taking your remark seriously. > > I've no idea what you're on about now. Is this all this just an attempt > to prove me wrong one way or another? > > The subthread is about what is true source and what isn't. > > If I submit the source-code pcc64.c for my interpreter, you can compile > it easily and run that program, but it apparently doesn't count as true > source. > > If you take the collection of .c/.h files used by CPython, you can't > compile them because it relies on a million things needing to be done > first. But apparently that /is/ true source even though it uses so many > tools to develop it. > > The Tiny C example is a trivial example of the latter. Which is exactly > what I said to start with: "A simple example is Tiny C. This won't > compile as config.h is missing." > A goal for Baby X was that gcc *.c would compile the system, of course if you pointed a shell at the source directory. But that didn't survive the move to MS Windows compatibility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 11:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GSVfC.192746$bm7.169255@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #126567 |
On 11/02/2018 11:17, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 10:58:23 AM UTC, Bart wrote:
>> The Tiny C example is a trivial example of the latter. Which is exactly
>> what I said to start with: "A simple example is Tiny C. This won't
>> compile as config.h is missing."
>>
> A goal for Baby X was that gcc *.c would compile the system, of course
> if you pointed a shell at the source directory.
> But that didn't survive the move to MS Windows compatibility.
Try this:
> dir/b *.c > files
> gcc @files
--
bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 14:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87a7wfk3oo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #126566 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 11/02/2018 01:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> If you tried 'gcc tcc.c' it wouldn't work. >> >> I see, user error. You were just having a laugh. My apologies for >> taking your remark seriously. > > I've no idea what you're on about now. Is this all this just an > attempt to prove me wrong one way or another? Obviously not. There's not argument, no reasoning, no evidence -- I'm clearly not trying to prove anything. > The subthread is about what is true source and what isn't. Not to me. I'm not interested in your notion of "true source". If that's what you've been talking about, no wonder I could not work out what you were saying. Anyway, it's resolved -- you were talking about something you call "true source" (and having a poke at some open source projects on the side), while I was talking about open source projects and which packages were breaking the rules as you claimed "most of them" did. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 15:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dZYfC.762969$5h1.5704@fx31.am4> |
| In reply to | #126575 |
On 11/02/2018 14:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > Anyway, it's resolved -- you were talking about something you call "true > source" (and having a poke at some open source projects on the side), Did I say anything about them that isn't true? It does seem to be the case that for projects purportedly written in C, it can be very difficult to build them into working programs armed only with a C compiler and linker. (Conversely, even though my projects are not written in C, it is very easy to turn them into executables using only a C compiler. There is a debate about whether that constitutes true source code, but if I'd lost the original, I would probably be able to re-construct it from the C.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87y3jzihcp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #126576 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/02/2018 14:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> Anyway, it's resolved -- you were talking about something you call "true
>> source" (and having a poke at some open source projects on the side),
>
> Did I say anything about them that isn't true?
I assume not. But the poke was suggesting that they ("most of them")
don't comply with the definition of open source when in fact you were
just saying that they did not confirm to your expectations.
> It does seem to be the case that for projects purportedly written in
> C, it can be very difficult to build them into working programs armed
> only with a C compiler and linker.
Yes, almost impossible in many cases.
> (Conversely, even though my projects are not written in C, it is very
> easy to turn them into executables using only a C compiler.
>
> There is a debate about whether that constitutes true source code, but
> if I'd lost the original, I would probably be able to re-construct it
> from the C.)
Only in the sense that there is debate about anything provided someone
is prepared to debate the point. The definition used by the OSI is
almost universally accepted (though obviously not by you).
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-12 22:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bCogC.8540$Nt6.2917@fx43.am4> |
| In reply to | #126534 |
On 10/02/2018 20:23, bartc wrote: > On 10/02/2018 20:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> No, I mean that I am independently writing separate programs >>> (compilers etc) that do some of the same tasks. >> >> I understood that. I was simply asking if those programs would also be >> open source. > > I thought I'd answered that: Yes. No. Probably. > > There's a slight complication. I can easily supply C representations of > the sources (I think all these programs will be compiled code to get the > best speed as that is a feature), but those will not the true sources. > > That C code is largely readable and people can do what they like with > the code. I'm changing my mind about this approach. I'm developing a revised code generator for use on a couple of compilers including my C compiler. But I may drop the ability to generate C source code, and therefore being able to create one-file C source versions of my apps. (Having to express things in C also means some features I'd like to have are not practical.) Then my apps, if I make them available, will be as binary executables, or as non-C sources. 'True' sources, although I will use another scheme of distributing them as single files. Then, also, there will be no need for a C compiler. (Bootstrapping will require a binary tool that I will have to provide.) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-10 18:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uPGfC.2200583$OX.1491064@fx47.am4> |
| In reply to | #126522 |
On 10/02/2018 17:36, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> And it's all open source, >> >> Seriously? > > Yes, that's a true fact as far as I know. I don't doubt it is true. I meant, does being open source magically make it practical to start messing around with any project regardless of complexity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-10 20:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87zi4glike.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #126525 |
bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 10/02/2018 17:36, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>>> And it's all open source, >>> >>> Seriously? >> >> Yes, that's a true fact as far as I know. > > I don't doubt it is true. > > I meant, does being open source magically make it practical to start > messing around with any project regardless of complexity? A misunderstanding I think. Because you put the "seriously" after my remark about it being all open source I though that was what you were questioning. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-10 14:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnp7u1c0.eu5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #126478 |
On Fri, 2018-02-09, David Brown wrote: > On 09/02/18 11:48, bartc wrote: ... >> This is why smaller, self-contained products such as Pelles C, lccwin, >> the old DMC, and also Tiny C are important. Created by individuals, it >> gives them a human touch. > > I couldn't care less about a "human touch" in a compiler or its > associated libraries, headers, utilities, etc. I like a "human touch" > in the support, and being able to talk to people involved in the > development or support. I don't want to be "friends" with my compiler, > any more than I want to be friends with my car - they are tools. I want that human touch in software, too. In the sense that I want to use software which the author uses him/herself. And I prefer an author with ideals similar to mine. Of course, other things are far more important. I'm very happy with gcc and don't mind that it occupies 0.7% of my /usr partition. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-10 16:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20180210164251.2f85331c91718546b571aef8@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #126515 |
On 10 Feb 2018 14:45:20 GMT Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > I want that human touch in software, too. In the sense that I want to > use software which the author uses him/herself. And I prefer an > author with ideals similar to mine. That's why this group is still going to nowhere since everyone wants his ideal without concession. I'm monitoring this group only to get facts and as much as possible a scientific analysis of the C language to improve my programming approach. Sometimes I'm right, many times I'm completely wrong, but it doesn't matter. What is making the difference in the end, it is the lesson I learnt. > Of course, other things are far more important. I'm very happy > with gcc and don't mind that it occupies 0.7% of my /usr partition. Actually I'm not too happy with GCC or free software in general since it is killing competition and many businesses, specially small businesses. How could anyone enter into a market with zero client but only users of free services sponsored by Google, etc? Actually without client there is no market at all! When it is free it means YOU are the product. However, I have no problem with free samples or demos for promotion. -- GOTHIER Nathan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 08:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnp7vuvm.eu5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #126517 |
On Sat, 2018-02-10, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On 10 Feb 2018 14:45:20 GMT > Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: ... >> Of course, other things are far more important. I'm very happy >> with gcc and don't mind that it occupies 0.7% of my /usr partition. > > Actually I'm not too happy with GCC or free software in general > since it is killing competition and many businesses, specially small > businesses. How could anyone enter into a market with zero client but > only users of free services sponsored by Google, etc? Actually without > client there is no market at all! When it is free it means YOU are the > product. You're talking about two very different things: free software, and the services you don't explicitly pay for. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 13:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20180211134810.7a3afcb02acd7a397156ca2b@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #126562 |
On 11 Feb 2018 08:16:54 GMT Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > You're talking about two very different things: free software, and the > services you don't explicitly pay for. I have to disagree since there is no commercial model or ad based revenues for the free software constellation. Most of projects relies on sponsoring by the anticompetitive GAFAM through foundations. It looks like communism but paid by capitalists. In other words, the free software community is enslaved by the GAFAM. -- GOTHIER Nathan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 15:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnp80p2n.eu5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #126573 |
On Sun, 2018-02-11, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On 11 Feb 2018 08:16:54 GMT > Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > >> You're talking about two very different things: free software, and the >> services you don't explicitly pay for. > > I have to disagree since there is no commercial model or ad based > revenues for the free software constellation. But that's what I wrote! I see no connection between FOSS software being available, and Facebook and friends (your GAFAM) selling my attention. I do think we'd all be better off if we started paying for services, and I'm not happy with the way a few giants control our online lives. > Most of projects relies on sponsoring by the anticompetitive GAFAM > through foundations. It looks like communism but paid by > capitalists. In other words, the free software community is enslaved > by the GAFAM. I had to look it up: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft. Well, I'm pretty sensitive to enslavement, and I just don't feel it, not as a C programmer. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-11 18:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20180211184403.f2c335dc6c998391fb3fbacb@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #126579 |
On 11 Feb 2018 15:42:15 GMT Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > But that's what I wrote! I see no connection between FOSS software > being available, and Facebook and friends (your GAFAM) selling my > attention. Platinum members: Microsoft, Intel, etc Gold members: Facebook, Alibaba, etc Silver members: Google, Amazon, etc https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/14/mozilla-terminates-its-deal-with-yahoo-and-makes-google-the-default-in-firefox-again/ Is it so hard to see the connection? o_O -- GOTHIER Nathan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-12 15:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnp83d91.eu5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #126582 |
On Sun, 2018-02-11, GOTHIER Nathan wrote: > On 11 Feb 2018 15:42:15 GMT > Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote: > >> But that's what I wrote! I see no connection between FOSS software >> being available, and Facebook and friends (your GAFAM) selling my >> attention. > > Platinum members: Microsoft, Intel, etc > Gold members: Facebook, Alibaba, etc > Silver members: Google, Amazon, etc > > https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ > > https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/14/mozilla-terminates-its-deal-with-yahoo-and-makes-google-the-default-in-firefox-again/ > > Is it so hard to see the connection? o_O Well, yes. The companies you list could have done the same thing with proprietary software. In fact, that's how they do it: we don't get to see the Facebook algorithms, for example. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web