From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18523 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 03:14:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18514 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 03:14:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp1.fuse.net) (216.68.8.171) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 03:14:36 -0000 Received: from dellpi.pinski.fam ([66.42.149.214]) by smtp1.fuse.net (InterMail vM.6.00.05.02 201-2115-109-103-20031105) with ESMTP id <20040120031432.RBWL20957.smtp1.fuse.net@dellpi.pinski.fam>; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:14:32 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (IDENT:pinskia@localhost.pinski.fam [127.0.0.1]) by dellpi.pinski.fam (8.12.2/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i0K3EXLI002119; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:14:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20040120030035.81746.qmail@mail.com> References: <20040120030035.81746.qmail@mail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Andrew Pinski From: Andrew Pinski Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:14:00 -0000 To: "D. Starner" X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01436.txt.bz2 On Jan 19, 2004, at 19:00, D. Starner wrote: >> That's a pretty reasonable machine at a very reasonable >> price. I know it's a little ahead of what some people might >> have, but I think it is still a reasonable benchmark machine. > > There are many people running *BSD and Linux machines who may > not be doing heavy development, but still need to compile the > latest mplayer or Mozilla sources. Some of them are students > who have a completely working machine, virtually no income > and no need to buy a new computer besides GCC. GCC and mplayer > are the only two programs which tax my five year old CPU over > twenty seconds. Saying I should just spend $400 to upgrade > a machine that works just fine to support an application which > ran on a VAX just fine at one point in time seems a little > unreasonable. But that is not the FreeDOM that the FSF is taking about. From : But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of ``open source'' and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one. Thanks, Andrew Pinski