* Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter @ 2000-04-13 0:00 Ken Garlington 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter Marin D. Condic 0 siblings, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Ken Garlington @ 2000-04-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) http://www.ghs.com/html/press/20/200407j.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter 2000-04-13 0:00 Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter Ken Garlington @ 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter Marin D. Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2000-04-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <4eaJ4.23498$hh2.538870@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote: > http://www.ghs.com/html/press/20/200407j.html Interestingly enough, GreenHills is also the Ada compiler for the simulator for the Joint Primary Aircraft Traing System. I guess if you're working on a "Joint", GreenHills is the compiler for you. :-) -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Steve Arnold 0 siblings, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-04-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <8d4lpa$ffu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > Interestingly enough, GreenHills is also the Ada compiler for > the simulator for the Joint Primary Aircraft Traing System. I > guess if you're working on a "Joint", GreenHills is the > compiler for you. :-) Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions. The JSF project is a large one involving many subprojects. Several important components are using GNAT, and it would surprise me if there were not other components using Rational and other Ada 95 compilers. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-04-14 0:00 ` David Gillon 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Steve Arnold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2000-04-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <8d531v$vcr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote: > In article <8d4lpa$ffu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > > > Interestingly enough, GreenHills is also the Ada compiler for > > the simulator for the Joint Primary Aircraft Traing System. I > > guess if you're working on a "Joint", GreenHills is the > > compiler for you. :-) > > Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions. The JSF project is > a large one involving many subprojects. Several important > components are using GNAT, and it would surprise me if there > were not other components using Rational and other Ada 95 > compilers. Well...yes. I was just making a (lame) joke. There's also a whole other company working on JSF at the moment, if the press release is to be believed. I'm curious if that other company is even using Ada at all. -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-04-14 0:00 ` David Gillon 0 siblings, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: David Gillon @ 2000-04-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > There's also a whole other company working on JSF at the moment, if the > press release is to be believed. I'm curious if that other company is > even using Ada at all. LockMart are building the X-35A and B, Boeing the X-32A and B (A = conventional takeoff and landing, B = Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing). It's reasonably safe to bet large portions of both aircraft's systems are in Ada. The fly-off should start mid-year IIRC, based on the result of that they'll downselect in 2001 to a single design concept to be developed into an operational aircraft due into service around 2010. -- David Gillon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Steve Arnold 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Paul Makepeace 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Steve Arnold @ 2000-04-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <8d531v$vcr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote: >In article <8d4lpa$ffu$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > >> Interestingly enough, GreenHills is also the Ada compiler for >> the simulator for the Joint Primary Aircraft Traing System. I >> guess if you're working on a "Joint", GreenHills is the >> compiler for you. :-) > >Don't be too quick to jump to conclusions. The JSF project is >a large one involving many subprojects. Several important >components are using GNAT, and it would surprise me if there >were not other components using Rational and other Ada 95 >compilers. I was just going to ask if any DoD/govt projects ever used GNAT. It seems to me that GNAT (and gcc in general) are way better than many commercial equivalents (plus you get the source code:) but AFAIK, none of the "official" projects here at VAFB have ever used any GNU or open source development tools (if they have, they've kept quiet about it). Can you provide more examples? Steve ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Steve Arnold @ 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Paul Makepeace 2000-04-24 0:00 ` Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) Wes Groleau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Paul Makepeace @ 2000-04-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >I was just going to ask if any DoD/govt projects ever used GNAT. It seems to >me that GNAT (and gcc in general) are way better than many commercial >equivalents (plus you get the source code:) but AFAIK, none of the "official" >projects here at VAFB have ever used any GNU or open source development tools >(if they have, they've kept quiet about it). > >Can you provide more examples? See the following site: http://www.mitre.org/support/swee/html/39_devine/index.htm then click on "Lack of Mature Tools". According to the website, both GNAT and AONIX have been used for this NATO project. Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Paul Makepeace @ 2000-04-24 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 2000-04-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > See the following site: > > http://www.mitre.org/support/swee/html/39_devine/index.htm > > then click on "Lack of Mature Tools". > > According to the website, both GNAT and AONIX have been used for this NATO > project. The page cited mentions defects in both GNAT and Aonix. In the interest of fairness: this project (NABK) also found a serious defect in code generation for protected calls in Apex. (However, Rational found the product the same time NABK did, so a patch was available within two days.) -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-24 0:00 ` Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) Wes Groleau @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <390472E9.E0A17BC6@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>, > Wes Groleau <wwgrol@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote: > The page cited mentions defects in both GNAT and Aonix. In > th interest of fairness: this project (NABK) also found a > serious defect in code generation for protected calls in Apex. > (However, Rational found the product the same time NABK did, > so a patch was available within two days.) Actually, as far as I can tell, this project did not make use of the commercial version of GNAT, but used some unsupported public version obtained somewhere from the net (and certainly not from Ada Core Technologies). Yes, among the technologies mentioned on the slides, it mentions that GNAT is the most stable, but still this is NOT the commercial version of GNAT. In fact we can't even be sure that it is the same bits that we originally placed there. The advantage of freely available software on the net is precisely that, it is freely available, but the downside is you can never be sure exactly what you are getting. Actually we can't even be sure there were any defects in any of the compilers. Our experience is that frequently people think there are problems in GNAT, and instead it turns out to be problems in their understanding of Ada 95, or unexpected portability errors. For example, users have many times complained that GNAT gets Natural'Size wrong (everyone knows it should be 32 right :-). Of course there may have very well been real bugs, but it's hard to tell. Given that they had no support for the use of GNAT, it is not clear to whom they could turn to understand what they observed. This is perhaps a good opportunity to remind people that although the widely available public version of GNAT is very useful for student and research use, if you are evaluating GNAT for use in a commercial project, and particularly if you are evaluating it in comparison with other commercial Ada compilers, then it is advisable to contact Ada Core Technologies. Like any other commercial Ada vendor, we can provide evaluation copies of the latest version of our technology, GNAT Professional, and you can then evaluate this with our support and help. For further information, contact sales@gnat.com or sales@act-europe.fr. This is not just a matter of "the interests of fairness", but in our experience a huge time saver. Support is particularly useful when you are first encountering a new technology! I apologize if this is a bit too commercial of a message, but in the case of GNAT, people often do not have a clear understanding of the relationship of the public version and the commercial version of GNAT. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-26 0:00 ` tmoran ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes: > Actually, as far as I can tell, this project did not make use of the > commercial version of GNAT, but used some unsupported public version > obtained somewhere from the net (and certainly not from Ada Core > Technologies). Yes, among the technologies mentioned on the slides, > it mentions that GNAT is the most stable, but still this is NOT the > commercial version of GNAT. In fact we can't even be sure that it > is the same bits that we originally placed there. The advantage of > freely available software on the net is precisely that, it is freely > available, but You seem to be trying to scare people off using the public version even if they do not need support because you "can't even be sure that it is the same bits" you "originally placed there". I think you can, and also, in particular, I find the following statement to be misleading : >the downside is you can never be sure exactly what you are getting. Are you really suggesting that if I see an announcement of a new public release of gnat on comp.lang.ada and I then download a file with that version number from cs.nyu.edu in /pub/gnat that it may somehow be corrupted? The wrong file? Altered by random strangers? This seems like a surprising claim to me. I'll bet you (i.e. ACT) can be pretty sure that those bits correspond exactly to the ACT build of that public version just with a sum(1). If you published checksums on www.gnat.com everybody else could be fairly sure as well, no matter where they actually downloaded the file from. Better checks are also easily provided (e.g. MD5) as seen on many other open source or free software projects. Not doing that is perfectly fine, but claiming the resultant lack of verifiability leads to authenticity problems seems very weaselly to me. The value I found in having an ACT support contract pretty much started flowing after I got the bits myself and installed them. Sorry ;^) Chris -- Chris Morgan <cm at mihalis.net> http://mihalis.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` tmoran 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >I'll bet you (i.e. ACT) can be pretty sure that those bits correspond >exactly to the ACT build of that public version just with a sum(1). >If you published checksums on ... Even if the bits on disk at NYU were guaranteed, ie, ACT agreed to pay money to anyone who downloaded them for free and then discovered they weren't correct, how many people have certified download and unpack (eg pkunzip) software? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-26 0:00 ` tmoran @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Chris Morgan wrote: > Are you really suggesting that if I see an announcement of a new > public release of gnat on comp.lang.ada and I then download a file > with that version number from cs.nyu.edu in /pub/gnat that it may > somehow be corrupted? The wrong file? Altered by random strangers? I believe that the right answers are: several times, happened at least once, and has not happened yet--at least on cs.nyu.edu. There are many different versions of each new gnat release that can be found on cs.nyu.edu. There have been uploading problems on several occasions resulting in corrupted files, and at least once the wrong version of a binary was uploaded. Note also that not all of the versions available from cs.nyu.edu are created by ACT and so ACT as such has no way to guarentee conformance for such versions. Having said all that--and RBKD or someone else can provide the gory details--GNAT is probably at least as reliable and robust as Netscape or other products you can download over the net. But if you see the announcement of a new "p" release and download it immediately, there will be times when you will have to go back for the correct version. So yes, Robert is implying that those things can happen and that ACT cannot be responsible--among other things, it is not their server. > This seems like a surprising claim to me. I'll bet you (i.e. ACT) can > be pretty sure that those bits correspond exactly to the ACT build of > that public version just with a sum(1). If you published checksums on > www.gnat.com everybody else could be fairly sure as well, no matter > where they actually downloaded the file from. Better checks are also > easily provided (e.g. MD5) as seen on many other open source or free > software projects. > > Not doing that is perfectly fine, but claiming the resultant lack of > verifiability leads to authenticity problems seems very weaselly to > me. I don't think any weaseling was intended. MD5 checksums would probably be a good idea, but the archive formats do include checksums that detect truncated or corrupted files. When I am concerned about someone maliciously modifying software, however, I much prefer CD as a delivery media. After installing, you should checksum not just the compiler, but the entire directory hierarchy. There are tools to do this. Such tools in fact are included in the DII COE, and in GCCS their use is mandatory. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@earthlink.net> writes: > Chris Morgan wrote: > > > Are you really suggesting that if I see an announcement of a new > > public release of gnat on comp.lang.ada and I then download a file > > with that version number from cs.nyu.edu in /pub/gnat that it may > > somehow be corrupted? The wrong file? Altered by random strangers? > > I believe that the right answers are: several times, happened at > least once, and has not happened yet--at least on cs.nyu.edu. There are > many different versions of each new gnat release that can be found on > cs.nyu.edu. There have been uploading problems on several occasions > resulting in corrupted files, and at least once the wrong version of a > binary was uploaded. Note also that not all of the versions available > from cs.nyu.edu are created by ACT and so ACT as such has no way to > guarentee conformance for such versions. Yeah, but simple corruption would normally cause either tar or gunzip to fail. What I should have said, I suppose, is it's not at all difficult to reliably transmit the public versions to users and be assured the right bits got there, e.g. if ACT had a public area on their own ftp servers and published MD5 checksums. Of course ACT may occasionally make a mistake and put the wrong file up, even on their own servers, but in that case the odds would be reasonable that they would also make up a cd containing the mistake. > > Having said all that--and RBKD or someone else can provide the gory > details--GNAT is probably at least as reliable and robust as Netscape or > other products you can download over the net. But if you see the > announcement of a new "p" release and download it immediately, there > will be times when you will have to go back for the correct version. So > yes, Robert is implying that those things can happen and that ACT cannot > be responsible--among other things, it is not their server. Fair enough. But if I download this new p version and have a problem, it shouldn't be hard to verify my version. > I don't think any weaseling was intended. MD5 checksums would > probably be a good idea, but the archive formats do include checksums > that detect truncated or corrupted files. When I am concerned about > someone maliciously modifying software, however, I much prefer CD as a > delivery media. After installing, you should checksum not just the > compiler, but the entire directory hierarchy. There are tools to do > this. Such tools in fact are included in the DII COE, and in GCCS their > use is mandatory. Well not having ever had an ACT CD, I have to presume they transmit checksums with their CDs, in which case yes it's more reliable, however I still heartily dislike the implication that any users who just picked up some random bits called gnat somewhere on the net can't are not likely to have a valid version. Seeing as GNAT started off on DoD money to be a freely available tool, and started off with NYU staff dominating the development team, if they can't reliably transmit a known version to me at least most of the time via some ftp site such as cs.nyu.edu something is wrong. -- Chris Morgan <cm at mihalis.net> http://mihalis.net "O gummier hum warder buffer-lore rum Enter dare enter envelopes ply" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Chris Morgan wrote: > Yeah, but simple corruption would normally cause either tar or gunzip > to fail. What I should have said, I suppose, is it's not at all > difficult to reliably transmit the public versions to users and be > assured the right bits got there, e.g. if ACT had a public area on > their own ftp servers and published MD5 checksums. Of course ACT may > occasionally make a mistake and put the wrong file up, even on their > own servers, but in that case the odds would be reasonable that they > would also make up a cd containing the mistake. You seem to want to continue to misunderstand. Why would gunzip fail? Because the checksum did not match. MD5 allows additional protection against forged checksums, which are totally inapplicable to this case. To repeat something which you may have missed, ACT does not create all of the versions of GNAT, not even all versions on cs.nyu.edu. And for example, if you want a version of GNAT for Linux, there are several versions depending on whether you have Debian or Red Hat, and on which kernel version you are using, etc. You are much, much more likely to run into problems due to downloading the wrong version or installing it improperly than from someone smuggling a spoofed version onto the server. If you really need security, you have to pay the price. I am not talking about ACT's support price, which is trival, if you are working on a trusted or secure system. It may triple or more the cost of development to insure that your tools are trustworthy, and yes, if you need security and mission or life critical code, you can triple it again. Just adding an MD5 checksum would not help at all, you need to start with a risk analysis and a threat analysis. Then you can start doing all the things necessary to reduce the threat, which often will include examining the generated machine code for certain key parts of your program, burning parts of the code into ROM, etc. > Fair enough. But if I download this new p version and have a problem, > it shouldn't be hard to verify my version. Have you had a problem? I certainly have had bad downloads, but no difficulty in determining that the problem was just that... > Well not having ever had an ACT CD, I have to presume they transmit > checksums with their CDs, in which case yes it's more reliable, > however I still heartily dislike the implication that any users who > just picked up some random bits called gnat somewhere on the net can't > are not likely to have a valid version. Seeing as GNAT started off on > DoD money to be a freely available tool, and started off with NYU > staff dominating the development team, if they can't reliably transmit > a known version to me at least most of the time via some ftp site such > as cs.nyu.edu something is wrong. They can reliably transmit a known version to you. What RBKD is saying is that the version you pick up off the web without any involvement by ACT is not reliably transmitted, and I can't understand why you find that amazing. ACT is very good at insuring that the version they send you is appropriate for your system. If you want to install the Solaris version on your PC, it won't work, it is not their fault, end of story. Also if you decide to build GNAT from source for a currently unsupported system without ACT's help, they do not guarentee the result in any way, but they are quite willing to let you do so. If you want to do that, and add an MD5 signature to the version you prepare, go ahead. Well maybe not end of story. You have to understand what RBKD was saying. He was NOT saying, if you want to be sure of getting our version of GNAT, you must pay. He was saying that the support given to POTENTIAL customers by sales@gnat.com often makes the difference in a company's compiler choice. If you are trying to choose between supported compilers, compare the supported GNAT product to their competitor's supported product, or even to the unsupported version of GNAT. The "handholding" can, and often will, make a big difference. For example, if your company has Ada 83 legacy code and you are moving to Ada 95, they can help, in some cases by providing a special compiler version, to make it easy to get the existing code into GNAT style libraries and still or back under your version control system. This is why he is saying you should compare apples to apples. On the other hand, if you intend to compare the free version to some other compiler, go ahead. But understand that it is not the product that ACT is selling. The support from ACT is very good, and that is one of their major selling points. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 0 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 2000-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@earthlink.net> writes: > You seem to want to continue to misunderstand. I don't want to misunderstand, and I'm not sure I misunderstand anyway. > Why would gunzip fail? Because the checksum did not match. Which implies a bad download. So any user is safe from a bad download. > MD5 allows additional protection against forged checksums, which > are totally inapplicable to this case. Not if people got their files from some other ftp server nearer them on the net but checked the MD5 checksums against a hypothetical web page on www.gnat.com. > To repeat something which you may have missed, ACT does not create all > of the versions of GNAT, not even all versions on cs.nyu.edu. And for > example, if you want a version of GNAT for Linux, there are several > versions depending on whether you have Debian or Red Hat, and on which > kernel version you are using, etc. There is no profusion of linux versions on cs.nyu.edu : ftp> dir gnat-3.12p* 200 PORT command successful. 150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for /bin/ls. -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 8734825 Nov 2 19:40 gnat-3.12p-alpha-dec-osf4.0d-bin.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 1562945 Oct 19 1999 gnat-3.12p-docs.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 6246712 Oct 19 1999 gnat-3.12p-hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20-bin.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 5295724 Oct 19 1999 gnat-3.12p-i386-pc-solaris2.6-bin.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 6525643 Oct 19 1999 gnat-3.12p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 8497448 Oct 19 1999 gnat-3.12p-powerpc-ibm-aix4.1.4.0-bin.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 8057292 Oct 19 1999 gnat-3.12p-sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1-bin.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 4266495 Oct 19 1999 gnat-3.12p-src.tar.gz 226 Listing completed. ftp> It's been mostly like this, apart from version numbers for, oh, about 5 years or more. My understanding is that, in actual fact, the above gnat-3.12p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin.tar.gz is ACT's public version. Same goes for the Solaris file. The Ada for Linux stuff doesn't seem to be there, it's on www.gnuada.org as usual. > You are much, much more likely to > run into problems due to downloading the wrong version or installing it > improperly than from someone smuggling a spoofed version onto the > server. Right. This seems like my point, not yours. Robert seemed to me to casting aspersions on the authenticity of any copies not received under contract via CD. Since even untarring the files successfully means you did't have a bad download, and since the files on cs.nyu.edu are put there by ACT, I think this implication is wrong, and unfortunate. > If you really need security, you have to pay the price. I am not > talking about ACT's support price, which is trival, if you are working > on a trusted or secure system. It may triple or more the cost of > development to insure that your tools are trustworthy, and yes, if you > need security and mission or life critical code, you can triple it > again. Just adding an MD5 checksum would not help at all, you need to > start with a risk analysis and a threat analysis. Then you can start > doing all the things necessary to reduce the threat, which often will > include examining the generated machine code for certain key parts of > your program, burning parts of the code into ROM, etc. This is not the level I was talking about. Once again, RBKD wrote : > Actually, as far as I can tell, this project did not make use of the > commercial version of GNAT, but used some unsupported public version > obtained somewhere from the net (and certainly not from Ada Core > Technologies). Yes, among the technologies mentioned on the slides, > it mentions that GNAT is the most stable, but still this is NOT the > commercial version of GNAT. In fact we can't even be sure that it > is the same bits that we originally placed there. The advantage of > freely available software on the net is precisely that, it is freely > available, but the downside is you can never be sure exactly what > you are getting. I am only talking about the implication that you can't be sure you get a "good GNAT" unless you get support. Here's my situation (sort of hypothetical). I work for a company doing Ada on some tired old machines with some tired old compilers. I go straight to cs.nyu.edu via ftp, turn on the binary flag, and download the Solaris version. It ungzips and untars nicely and installs and runs. Now, I examine the compiler for things like how well it parses our code, how much memory it needs for our big packages etc. I report back to my managers. Now, of course ACT has new and better stuff up its sleeve, so of course my conclusions aren't definitive, but are my managers supposed to think I'm a fool for paying any attention to that "unsupported public version"? Well in my case I tell them "we really should use the wavefront from ACT off their customer site" and the response is the (slightly surprising) "no we'll use the public version, we don't want to be guinea pigs for anything not publically released yet unless we really need to". > > > Fair enough. But if I download this new p version and have a problem, > > it shouldn't be hard to verify my version. > > Have you had a problem? I certainly have had bad downloads, but no > difficulty in determining that the problem was just that... No, that's the point. I've never had a problem. Or perhaps I should say I never did have a problem when this stuff was my job (the above is only hypothetical because it's ancient history). > They can reliably transmit a known version to you. What RBKD is > saying is that the version you pick up off the web without any > involvement by ACT is not reliably transmitted, and I can't understand > why you find that amazing. ACT is very good at insuring that the > version they send you is appropriate for your system. If you want to > install the Solaris version on your PC, it won't work, it is not their > fault, end of story. Also if you decide to build GNAT from source for a > currently unsupported system without ACT's help, they do not guarentee > the result in any way, but they are quite willing to let you do so. If > you want to do that, and add an MD5 signature to the version you > prepare, go ahead. What he's saying seems to be true if you accept that the public versions of GNAT are not really publically available at all, since you can't get them from ACT and anywhere else is just some unconnected random friendly bit bucket. I don't think this is true of cs.nyu.edu. > > Well maybe not end of story. You have to understand what RBKD was > saying. He was NOT saying, if you want to be sure of getting our > version of GNAT, you must pay. That is precisely the implication that I perceived. How can I get the public version of GNAT? Well not from ACT, and if this explanation that I'm perhaps still not understanding is to be believed, not from anywhere else either since you can't get public GNAT from ACT without telling sales@gnat.com that you're a potential sale. Well since I'm no longer in the Ada business at all whatsoever, I won't be able to afford any level of ACT support, plus I wouldn't mislead their sales people, so I guess it's impossible for me to get an authentic version of the public release of GNAT 3.12. Oh well. > He was saying that the support given to > POTENTIAL customers by sales@gnat.com often makes the difference in a > company's compiler choice. If you are trying to choose between > supported compilers, compare the supported GNAT product to their > competitor's supported product, or even to the unsupported version of > GNAT. The "handholding" can, and often will, make a big difference. > For example, if your company has Ada 83 legacy code and you are moving > to Ada 95, they can help, in some cases by providing a special compiler > version, to make it easy to get the existing code into GNAT style > libraries and still or back under your version control system. This is > why he is saying you should compare apples to apples. I know all this very well. I know how ACT's support compares to other vendors. I know what some other vendors said about GNAT. The one thing I don't like and don't understand is why there isn't a /pub/unsupported on ftp.gnat.com with anonymous access and all the publically released files. I mean, I even made the bad mistake of trying to defend the ACT way against unfounded criticisms from a very upset unsupported GNAT users, and yet I don't see how this particular point meshes with ACT's happy espousal of RMS's ideas. > On the other hand, if you intend to compare the free version to some > other compiler, go ahead. But understand that it is not the product > that ACT is selling. The support from ACT is very good, and that is one > of their major selling points. But it's the same compiler!!!!!!! Perhaps there are so many people who don't assume in any comparison that all tools must have been successfully installed and their full documentation is at hand before any comparison is worth anything, that the installation and getting started handholding is a huge issue. From my point of view, however it was fairly clear how the competing products stacked up even using the completely unsupported GNAT releases from cs.nyu.edu. Even they were better, and that's the point. It's all rather moot for me anyway (that's the colloquial usage meaning "irrelevant", I know RBKD doesn't like that usage, sorry). I use GNAT at home for my own projects perfectly well. I don't use Ada at work, so I'm not terrified of the Ada cabal. Not that there is one. Perhaps people still in the trenches would like to comment? Chris -- Chris Morgan <cm at mihalis.net> http://mihalis.net "O gummier hum warder buffer-lore rum Enter dare enter envelopes ply" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 2000-04-29 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2000-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Chris, Here is what I propose. You download all the public releases, you make an MD5 sum of what is there, you publish it in your Web site, you write a paper to certify that version with the MD5 bits is indeed a "safe one to use" (this is easy to do, the ACVC regressions are free). This is the way I see the "open" in "open source", you have access to the source, so you can offer services not covered by the current market. Pascal. --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry --| --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Pascal Obry @ 2000-04-29 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-29 0:00 ` tmoran 2000-05-02 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 0 siblings, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 2000-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> writes: > Here is what I propose. You download all the public releases, you > make an MD5 sum of what is there, you publish it in your Web > site, you write a paper to certify that version with the MD5 bits > is indeed a "safe one to use" (this is easy to do, the ACVC > regressions are free). > > This is the way I see the "open" in "open source", you have access > to the source, so you can offer services not covered by the current > market. There seems to be an implication here that I'm after some kind of profit in some way related to GNAT technology, or want something onerous from ACT, but that's not true. In fact they've already done a truly great job and I was just nitpicking. Since I can't seem to convey what I was actually trying to say to anyone on this thread I'm just going to give up and go back to sleep. -- Chris Morgan <cm at mihalis.net> http://mihalis.net "O gummier hum warder buffer-lore rum Enter dare enter envelopes ply" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-29 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 2000-04-29 0:00 ` tmoran 2000-05-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-02 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2000-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >convey what I was actually trying to say to anyone on this thread I'm You were saying there is no technical reason ACT couldn't post a file with a secure signature on cs.nyu.edu, right? Why they would want to go to the extra trouble, just to aid the competition (the public version being a competitor to the supported version), is not obvious. You or I could simply announce "I've checked the version at cs.nyu.edu and it's correct" but would anybody to whom that's really important consider that statement credible? Would you, or anyone, volunteer, for free, to be on the receiving end of potential lawsuits if the version somehow wasn't correct? Of people downloading the $0 version, I suspect many have a version of Netscape or IE or ftp, and a version of pkzip or winzip, downloaded for free and of equally uncertain pedigree. What good would a certified version at cs.nyu.edu do if it's potentially corrupted once it's on your machine and unpacked? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-29 0:00 ` tmoran @ 2000-05-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-03 0:00 ` Matthew Woodcraft 0 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <I1vO4.586$XX5.462090@news.pacbell.net>, tmoran@bix.com wrote: > Why they would want to go to the extra trouble, just to aid > the competition (the public version being a competitor to the > supported version), is not obvious. Well I guess it is hard to succeed in being clear here, because Tom is still confused. No, it has nothing to do with supposed "competition" from the public version. What we offer to our customers is far more than just software! The point is, I will say it again, that we want to make it very clear that Ada Core Technologies makes no kinds of guarantees, nor takes any legal responsibilities, for the public versions of GNAT. We do not want to take any other steps that could be misinterpreted by others as indications that this is not the case. The reason that we do not take any responsibility is precisely that it is a public version. The existence of public versions of open source technologies that are freely modifiable by anyone, anywhere, at any time for any reason, is a huge advantage *for certain kinds of use*. For example, in the academic world, this kind of freedom is immensely important, and it is very valuable for students and academic researchers to be able to get their hands on this kind of open technology by downloading freely available versions, to be able to exchange modified versions etc. We encourage such interchange, but we need to remind people at the same time, that this incarnation of the GNAT technology is not supported by Ada Core Technologies, and no guarantees can be given. Indeed the notion of free availability and support/guarantees are definitely at odds, which is why the normal convention for freely available software of this type is to display a pretty fierce disclaimer. Here for example is what the standard freely available gdb has to say: GDB is free software and you are welcome to distribute copies of it under certain conditions; type "show copying" to see the conditions. There is absolutely no warranty for GDB; type "show warranty" for details. and if we follow the invitation, we get a very fierce legal disclaimer: 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. Now for GNAT Professional, the support agreement does indeed provide a detailed description of the support and guarantees for this commercial product, but they do not apply at all to the public version of GNAT. In the past, we have often seen people get confused over our relationship to the public version, and for example, to angrily demand that we guarantee Y2K compatibility for this version. We try to make it as clear as possible that the public version is NOT a commercial product of Ada Core Technologies. The public versions are tremendously useful, or at least we like to think so :-) in helping to spread the use of Ada especially in universities. But for many other purposes, including for example evaluation of the technology for possible use in mission critical projects, it is more appropriate to contact us and arrange a free evaluation of the supported commercial technology. It's simply a matter of picking the right tools for the right job. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-03 0:00 ` Matthew Woodcraft 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Ken Garlington 0 siblings, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Matthew Woodcraft @ 2000-05-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >The point is, I will say it again, that we want to make it >very clear that Ada Core Technologies makes no kinds of >guarantees, nor takes any legal responsibilities, for the >public versions of GNAT. We do not want to take any other >steps that could be misinterpreted by others as indications >that this is not the case. You do guarantee that the source you distribute matches the binaries you distribute, no? -M- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-03 0:00 ` Matthew Woodcraft @ 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Ken Garlington 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <jhi*wLbro@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, > You do guarantee that the source you distribute matches the > binaries you distribute, no? It sure is hard to get the message across. Indeed messages such as the above may make it easier to gain perspective on my previous posts here. The answer to the above question is no, since we do not distribute either the source or the binary of the public version. We simply send one copy to the nyu site. Any further distribution is nothing to do with us. We definitely cannot make any guarantee if you have a source and a binary of GNAT that they match in the above sense. Indeed we have OFTEN seen people distributing GNAT in a manner that is inconsistent with the GPL, in that they do not bother about their obligation to either distribute the source, or tell people where to get it. I don't think it matters too much in practice, but it is certainly nothing to do with us! Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2000-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes: > We definitely cannot make any guarantee if you have a source > and a binary of GNAT that they match in the above sense. Indeed > we have OFTEN seen people distributing GNAT in a manner that is > inconsistent with the GPL, in that they do not bother about > their obligation to either distribute the source, or tell people > where to get it. In the past, you had to be inconsistent with the GPL if you wanted to redistribute the Windows version of GNAT in the form provided by Ada Core Technologies because you couldn't provide the sources of the installation program. ;) (Don't know if this has changed recently.) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer @ 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-06 0:00 ` Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2000-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87pur1ti2x.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>, Florian Weimer <fw-usenet@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> wrote: > > In the past, you had to be inconsistent with the GPL if you wanted > to redistribute the Windows version of GNAT in the form provided by > Ada Core Technologies because you couldn't provide the sources of the > installation program. ;) > > (Don't know if this has changed recently.) > Thanks. I had almost forgotten this one (an InstallShield-like app) from my list of needed OpenSource programs that could be done in Ada. -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-06 0:00 ` Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2000-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> writes: > Thanks. I had almost forgotten this one (an InstallShield-like app) from > my list of needed OpenSource programs that could be done in Ada. Hmm. I'd like to see a portable newsreader which runs on OS/2. If it is implemented properly, this could tremendously increase the readability of some of the most interesting postings on CLA. ;) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer @ 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-10 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87pur13q6r.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>, Florian Weimer <fw-usenet@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> wrote: > Hmm. I'd like to see a portable newsreader which runs on > OS/2. If it is implemented properly, this could tremendously > increase the readability of some of the most interesting > postings on CLA. ;) And what exactly is wrong with Netscape? (says Robert who is reading CLA via Deja News Classic (=dnc) on Netscape) ... Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-10 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2000-05-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes: > And what exactly is wrong with Netscape? (says Robert who is > reading CLA via Deja News Classic (=dnc) on Netscape) ... Deja adds an annoying footer. Sometimes, the previous article is quoted improperly. The lines are wrapped, but not prefixed by a quote sign, dramatically reducing readability, for example: > tmpnam() is broken as designed (the information is already outdated > when it is returned, and on Unix systems, an attacker could have > created a symlink linking to some interesting file), tmpfile() has > the correct interface, but you can't be sure that it's correctly > implemented on all systems. :-/ In addition, Deja users tend to send multiple copies of their articles. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer @ 2000-05-06 0:00 ` Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Ada test example - Linux Software Installer Larry Kilgallen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen @ 2000-05-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > > Thanks. I had almost forgotten this one (an InstallShield-like app) from > my list of needed OpenSource programs that could be done in Ada. > Let me suggest a test case for such a thing: A Linux installer. If one can keep the dependencies right and show the consequences of choices in real time it will be very hard to avoid Ada on the Linux installation CDs. Current Linux installers tend to want to install too much too soon. They don't try to establish whether the basics works before trying to install the whole caboodle. Greetings, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Ada test example - Linux Software Installer 2000-05-06 0:00 ` Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen @ 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2000-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1484 bytes --] In article <3913A546.3ADC7EB7@online.no>, "Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" <tarjei@online.no> writes: > Ted Dennison wrote: >> >> Thanks. I had almost forgotten this one (an InstallShield-like app) from >> my list of needed OpenSource programs that could be done in Ada. >> > > Let me suggest a test case for such a thing: A Linux installer. > > If one can keep the dependencies right and show the consequences of > choices in real time it will be very hard to avoid Ada on the Linux > installation CDs. > > Current Linux installers tend to want to install too much too soon. They > don't try to establish whether the basics works before trying to install > the whole caboodle. That sounds like a worthwhile project, but if you want to increase acceptance, please do _not_ license it in such a way that anyone who distributes the installer (such as, with their software) has to distribute the source to the software. Muddying the waters of Ada Advocacy with Open Source Advocacy would not increase adoption. Software vendors are sometimes faced with a customer demand to explain every single file on their CD, and while for some markets the proper response might be to add more files (source) for many it is not. I believe a software installer is a problem domain where a distributed set of diverse developers can do much better than a single organization, and thus the "risk" of somebody making a "better" installer (and keeping the source of their change secret) is minimal. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada test example - Linux Software Installer 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Ada test example - Linux Software Installer Larry Kilgallen @ 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <JpoF4nBx0iQb@eisner.decus.org>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > That sounds like a worthwhile project, but if you want to > increase acceptance, please do _not_ license it in such a way > that anyone who distributes the installer (such as, with their > software) has to distribute the source to the software. > Muddying the waters of Ada Advocacy with Open Source Advocacy > would not increase adoption. The GPL is fine for this purpose, there is no way that the GPL could be argued to apply to things the installer was installing. I suspect many readers of CLA are not aware of the principle of misuse of copyright. It is quite an instructive reminder in this kind of case :-) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada test example - Linux Software Installer 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2000-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <8f2jhl$35m$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes: > In article <JpoF4nBx0iQb@eisner.decus.org>, > Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: >> That sounds like a worthwhile project, but if you want to >> increase acceptance, please do _not_ license it in such a way >> that anyone who distributes the installer (such as, with their >> software) has to distribute the source to the software. >> Muddying the waters of Ada Advocacy with Open Source Advocacy >> would not increase adoption. > > The GPL is fine for this purpose, there is no way that the GPL > could be argued to apply to things the installer was installing. > I suspect many readers of CLA are not aware of the principle of > misuse of copyright. It is quite an instructive reminder in this > kind of case :-) I see I did not express my concern accurately. I am trying to avoid a requirement for those using the installer to distribute the source of the installer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada test example - Linux Software Installer 2000-05-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <hD5dQSoakfDi@eisner.decus.org>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > I am trying to avoid a requirement for those using the > installer to distribute the source of the installer. Well if it is GPL'ed, then of course you don't have to distribute these sources, merely pass on the distribution information that comes with the installer. Note that the GPL does NOT require sources to be distributed with a product, just made available, a pointer is fine, even if there is a charge for getting the sources. Now if you want an installer that you can modify and then distribute as your own proprietary work without the sources, the GPL is indeed unsuitable. Naturally the providers of proprietary software would prefer licenses that allow them to appropriate other people's work as their own, since it saves them trouble. Whether authors are willing to allow such appropriation is up to them. The GPL is suitable for use if you want to make sure that your contributed work remains open. If you don't mind your work being used by others without attribution in contexts including proprietary ones, then other licenses such as BSD are appropriate, or you can just place your work in the public domain, renouncing your copyright interests. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada test example - Linux Software Installer 2000-05-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <hD5dQSoakfDi@eisner.decus.org>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > I am trying to avoid a requirement for those using the > installer to distribute the source of the installer. I just want to reemphasize the point I made in my previous post. The GPL *never* requires that you distribute sources. You must make the sources available, common ways of doing this are a) indeed distribute sources with the distribution b) point to a website containing the sources c) make a written offer to provide the sources for case c) you can charge a reasonable fee for copying. THat's the only time the GPL has anything to say about levels of fees, and the reason is obvious, if sources cost $5 million they are operationally unavailable. But it would be fine to make the sources available on a CD ROM and charge whatever it cost you to make the copy (e.g. a charge such as $200 would be quite reasonable, given the time to make and check the copy etc). As an example of b) consider the TIVO consumer device for digital TV recording and replay. This device is based on Linux, and the instruction manual points to a website where you can get the sources of the particular source version of Linux used in this device. It's quite common to redistribute GPL'ed tools without providing the sources, by simply referencing the original source. That should be fine for almost all purposes, unless you want to deliberately conceal the fact that you are borrowing someone else's software. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87pur1ti2x.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>, Florian Weimer <fw-usenet@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> wrote: > Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes: > > > We definitely cannot make any guarantee if you have a source > > and a binary of GNAT that they match in the above sense. Indeed > > we have OFTEN seen people distributing GNAT in a manner that is > > inconsistent with the GPL, in that they do not bother about > > their obligation to either distribute the source, or tell people > > where to get it. > > In the past, you had to be inconsistent with the GPL if you wanted > to redistribute the Windows version of GNAT in the form provided by > Ada Core Technologies because you couldn't provide the sources of the > installation program. ;) > > (Don't know if this has changed recently.) The installation program is a separate program from any of the programs it installs. There is no incosistency here. You definitely can build GNAT from sources and install it without using install shield. The GPL applies on a program by program basis, there is no problem in distributing a package some of whose programs are proprietary and some of whose programs are GPL'ed. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Florian Weimer @ 2000-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes: > The installation program is a separate program from any of the > programs it installs. The last time I downloaded GNAT for Win32 it was a single executable. ;) > The GPL applies on a program by program basis, there is no > problem in distributing a package some of whose programs are > proprietary and some of whose programs are GPL'ed. Yes, mere aggregation is certainly permitted, but the license provided by ACT doesn't distinguish the installer from GNAT itself, which means that it applies to the installer as well (IMHO, IANAL). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer @ 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2000-05-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1095 bytes --] Florian Weimer a �crit dans le message <87aei557gc.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>... >Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes: > >> The installation program is a separate program from any of the >> programs it installs. > >The last time I downloaded GNAT for Win32 it was a single executable. ;) I do not understand what you mean here! Sure it is a single executable, it is an InstallShield program! But if you want to distribute GNAT (you certainly want to change something otherwise you just have to place the InstallShield on your server that's all) you need the source package (a .tar.gz) and from there you should be able to rebuild GNAT yourself and package it with whatever tool you want (InstallShield, WinZip selfext...). Pascal. --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry --| --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Pascal Obry @ 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87aei557gc.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>, Florian Weimer <fw-usenet@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> wrote: > Yes, mere aggregation is certainly permitted, but the license > provided by ACT doesn't distinguish the installer from GNAT > itself, which means that it applies to the installer as well > (IMHO, IANAL). Speaking as an expert in the industry standards and practice of copyright law (I have been so qualified in several federal courts), I see no possibloe problem here, and I have no idea what odd theory you are spinning to generate your IMHO post :-) Robert Dewar Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-03 0:00 ` Matthew Woodcraft 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Ken Garlington 2000-05-04 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1 sibling, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Ken Garlington @ 2000-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Matthew Woodcraft" <mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message news:jhi*wLbro@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk... > >The point is, I will say it again, that we want to make it > >very clear that Ada Core Technologies makes no kinds of > >guarantees, nor takes any legal responsibilities, for the > >public versions of GNAT. We do not want to take any other > >steps that could be misinterpreted by others as indications > >that this is not the case. > > You do guarantee that the source you distribute matches the binaries > you distribute, no? Somehow, I'm guessing the answer to this question (with respect to the public version) is "no". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Ken Garlington @ 2000-05-04 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 2000-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 04 May 2000 00:28:16 GMT, Ken Garlington <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote: >"Matthew Woodcraft" <mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message >news:jhi*wLbro@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk... >> >The point is, I will say it again, that we want to make it >> >very clear that Ada Core Technologies makes no kinds of >> >guarantees, nor takes any legal responsibilities, for the >> >public versions of GNAT. We do not want to take any other >> >steps that could be misinterpreted by others as indications >> >that this is not the case. >> >> You do guarantee that the source you distribute matches the binaries >> you distribute, no? > >Somehow, I'm guessing the answer to this question (with respect to the >public version) is "no". The whole reason for the question (assuming that they are distributing anything, which they certainly do to the NYU people) is that they are violating the GPL if the answer is no. Since the FSF holds the copyright, if they distribute, the source must match the binary or they could be in for legal trouble. (In theory. In practice, the FSF has much better things to do with their time than fight with ACT.) -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org The hell that is supposedly out there could be no worse than the hell that is sometimes seen in here. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-04 0:00 ` David Starner @ 2000-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-05-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <8eqgfn$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu>, dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org wrote: > The whole reason for the question (assuming that they are > distributing anything, which they certainly do to the NYU > people) is that they are violating the GPL if the answer is > no. Since the FSF holds the copyright, if they distribute, the > source must match the binary or they could be in for legal > trouble. Well of course the initial version we put out at NYU has matching objects and sources, the source is what we build the object from. My point is simply that beyond that point we are not distributing anything, and we cannot make any statements about matching sources and binaries once it leaves our hands. In practice we have often seen people distribute the binary version of GNAT without providing the sources or pointers to them, which is of course improper (though in practice not serious). > (In theory. In practice, the FSF has much better things to do > with their time than fight with ACT.) There would be no question of fighting here. We work very closely with the FSF, and if RMS or any of the other FSF guys had any concerns they would simply let us know and we would fix things :-) Remember that GNAT is part of the GNU system. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Ken Garlington 2000-05-04 0:00 ` David Starner @ 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2000-05-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <Au3Q4.5750$wb7.484988@news.flash.net>, "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> writes: > "Matthew Woodcraft" <mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message > news:jhi*wLbro@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk... >> >The point is, I will say it again, that we want to make it >> >very clear that Ada Core Technologies makes no kinds of >> >guarantees, nor takes any legal responsibilities, for the >> >public versions of GNAT. We do not want to take any other >> >steps that could be misinterpreted by others as indications >> >that this is not the case. >> >> You do guarantee that the source you distribute matches the binaries >> you distribute, no? > > Somehow, I'm guessing the answer to this question (with respect to the > public version) is "no". Whereas I would guess that it is "yes, but not for you", since ACT does not distribute the public version. They make an initial transmission to a server at NYU, but the copy you take from NYU was distributed by NYU, not distributed by ACT. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-29 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-29 0:00 ` tmoran @ 2000-05-02 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 1 sibling, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Pascal Obry @ 2000-05-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2018 bytes --] Chris Morgan <cm@mihalis.net> a �crit dans le message : 87aeidsgr8.fsf@think.mihalis.net... > "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> writes: > > > Here is what I propose. You download all the public releases, you > > make an MD5 sum of what is there, you publish it in your Web > > site, you write a paper to certify that version with the MD5 bits > > is indeed a "safe one to use" (this is easy to do, the ACVC > > regressions are free). > > > > This is the way I see the "open" in "open source", you have access > > to the source, so you can offer services not covered by the current > > market. > > There seems to be an implication here that I'm after some kind of > profit in some way related to GNAT technology, or want something Not at all. You can just offer a free services, I did not use the word "profit" ! > onerous from ACT, but that's not true. In fact they've already done a > truly great job and I was just nitpicking. Since I can't seem to > convey what I was actually trying to say to anyone on this thread I'm > just going to give up and go back to sleep. No. My point was just that if there is something you want not covered by ACT (for whatever reason) you can offer the service yourself. So don't go back to sleep :) Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member | --| | --| EDF-DER-IPN-SID- T T I | --| Intranet: http://cln46gb | --| Bureau N-023 e-mail: p.obry@der.edf.fr | --| 1 Av G�n�ral de Gaulle voice : +33-1-47.65.50.91 | --| 92141 Clamart CEDEX fax : +33-1-47.65.50.07 | --| FRANCE | --|------------------------------------------------------------ --| --| http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry --| --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 2000-04-26 0:00 ` David Starner 1 sibling, 2 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87ln212ghg.fsf@think.mihalis.net>, Chris Morgan <cm@mihalis.net> wrote: > Yeah, but simple corruption would normally cause either > tar or gunzip to fail. What I should have said, I > suppose, is it's not at all difficult to reliably > transmit the public versions to users and be assured the > right bits got there, e.g. if ACT had a public area on > their own ftp servers and published MD5 checksums. Of > course ACT may occasionally make a mistake and put the > wrong file up, even on their own servers, but in that > case the odds would be reasonable that they would also > make up a cd containing the mistake. The reason we do not provide the public version on our FTP site is that our FTP site is intended to serve SOLELY the needs of our commercial customers. The public versions as I have noted are NOT in any sense products of our company, and therefore do not belong on the company site. Note that the same is true of much free software, for instance the public versions of gcc are not distributed by Cygnus per se. > Fair enough. But if I download this new p version and > have a problem, it shouldn't be hard to verify my version. Well you wil have to find someone willing to provide the guarantees for that verification. Ada Core Technologies is not prepared to provide any guarantees here. > Well not having ever had an ACT CD, I have to presume they > transmit checksums with their CDs, in which case yes it's > more reliable, however I still heartily dislike the > implication that any users who > just picked up some > random bits called gnat somewhere on the net can't > are > not likely to have a valid version. I never said that they are not likely to have a valid version, just that Ada Core Technologies can provide no assurances that they *do* have a valid version. If you are comfortable with that situation and comfortable that you have a valid version, then that is a judgment for you to make for yourself. > Seeing as GNAT started off on DoD money to be a freely > available tool, and started off with NYU staff > dominating the development team, The entire development team were NYU employees (well except for Ed and I working in our sabbatical year to provide the features that DoD had refused to fund -- one of the deals to get this past fierce challenges from other Ada vendors was to try to cripple the product by failing to fund key features (subunits, fixed point ...) Other than that minor detail all development was by NYU employees. > If they can't reliably transmit a known version to me at > least most of the time via some ftp site such > as cs.nyu.edu something is wrong. There is a BIG difference. When we were at New York University, two things were different: 1. This was a university project, no one was providing any guarantees of anything at all, everything was on an as-is basis. The DoD contract contained no specific performance requirements (in fact DoD originally required validation, but this requirement was removed at the insistence of other Ada vendors). 2. When this was an NYU project, we did indeed control, or at least have some control over the use of the FTP site. Ada Core Technologies is not affiliated with New York University in any manner. We appreciate that NYU provides us some free resources (disk space) to hold public versions of GNAT, but once we upload stuff to NYU, the company has no control whatsoever over what happens. And we have even less control over stuff that other third parties upload. We certainly believe that NYU does a good job of maintaining its FTP site in a responsible manner, but we cannot guarantee that! At one point, the DoD was talking about providing some more permanent funding for supporting the public version of GNAT, but again, this was squelched because of concerns and complaints from other Ada vendors, and actually I really prefer it this way. Government subsidies of this kind are really not necessary nor desirable. Chris, if you are confident enough of what is out there, you could always provide others with guarantees of authenticity if you want! As I said earlier, the critical thing for me is for people to understand exactly what Ada Core Technologies products are, and what assurances and guarantees Ada Core Technologies makes about its products. This is important. If we were required to guarantee the authenticity of public releases and take legal responsibility for this guarantee, then we simply would not be able to make public releases at all, and that would be a loss. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 2000-04-26 0:00 ` David Starner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <8e6upv$3au$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes: > In article <87ln212ghg.fsf@think.mihalis.net>, > Chris Morgan <cm@mihalis.net> wrote: >> Fair enough. But if I download this new p version and >> have a problem, it shouldn't be hard to verify my version. > > Well you wil have to find someone willing to provide the > guarantees for that verification. Ada Core Technologies is > not prepared to provide any guarantees here. And what constitutes "verification" ? One test might be whether it matches what everybody else has. With a little effort, Chris or somebody similarly motivated could set up a service where everybody submitted _their_ MD5 hash of the such-and-such package and learned whether it matched the MD5 hash others had submitted. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:34:40 GMT, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote: >The reason we do not provide the public version on our FTP >site is that our FTP site is intended to serve SOLELY the >needs of our commercial customers. The public versions as I >have noted are NOT in any sense products of our company, and >therefore do not belong on the company site. Note that the >same is true of much free software, for instance the public >versions of gcc are not distributed by Cygnus per se. Um, gcc.gnu.org = egcs.cygnus.com, and that server certainly hosts an FTP site for the releases and snapshots, and a CVS server with the latest gcc. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org The hell that is supposedly out there could be no worse than the hell that is sometimes seen in here. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` David Starner @ 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-04-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <8e7510$9ic1@news.cis.okstate.edu>, dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org wrote: > On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 14:34:40 GMT, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote: > >The reason we do not provide the public version on our FTP > >site is that our FTP site is intended to serve SOLELY the > >needs of our commercial customers. The public versions as I > >have noted are NOT in any sense products of our company, and > >therefore do not belong on the company site. Note that the > >same is true of much free software, for instance the public > >versions of gcc are not distributed by Cygnus per se. > > Um, gcc.gnu.org = egcs.cygnus.com, and that server certainly hosts > an FTP site for the releases and snapshots, and a CVS server with the > latest gcc. cygnus provides the physical machine, but does NOT maintain the current gcc release. This is maintained and managed by the gcc maintenance committee. Some of the individuals on this committee happen to work for Cygnus, but they are not representing Cygnus on this committee. Cygnus certainly provides input to this process, but they are quick themselves to emphasize that they do not control the fsf version of gcc. So if you are reading this into the physical location of the machine supporting gcc.gnu.org, you are reading wrong! Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-26 0:00 ` tmoran 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2 siblings, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <87wvll7a5h.fsf@think.mihalis.net>, Chris Morgan <cm@mihalis.net> wrote: > Are you really suggesting that if I see an announcement of a new > public release of gnat on comp.lang.ada and I then download a file > with that version number from cs.nyu.edu in /pub/gnat that it may > somehow be corrupted? The wrong file? Altered by random strangers? Probably not. The point I am making is that Ada Core Technologies provides no kind of guarantees of any kind. We have definitely seen cases where releases have been altered (e.g. by omitting documentation). If you are comfortable with taking responsibility yourself for this possibility, then that's your decision. > This seems like a surprising claim to me. I'll bet you (i.e. > ACT) can be pretty sure that those bits correspond exactly to > the ACT build of that public version just with a sum(1). I would not be willing to make that statement, given that we have seen counter examples. Also people often do not clearly realize what Ada Core Technologies provides and what other volunteers provide. We still get bug reports (and even angry complaints sometimes) from users of the DOS version for example even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with us. > If you published checksums on > www.gnat.com everybody else could be fairly sure as well, no matter > where they actually downloaded the file from. Better checks are also > easily provided (e.g. MD5) as seen on many other open source or free > software projects. We don't publish such material, because this would make it even more suggestive that we are taking responsibility for the integrity of stuff on the net over which we have no control. > Not doing that is perfectly fine, but claiming the resultant > lack of verifiability leads to authenticity problems seems > very weaselly to me. Well as I say, if you are comfortable using unsupported bits and taking responsibility yourself for authenticity, then you do not have a problem. My point was just to make it clear to people that if they follow this route, they are taking responsibility for these issues. > The value I found in having an ACT support contract pretty > much started flowing after I got the bits myself and installed > them. Not quite sure what the above sentence means, but in any case to repeat the point I am making, most organizations prefer to use supported commercial software. If that is the case in your organization and you are interested in using GNAT, then you should evaluate GNAT Professional on the same basis as any other commercial Ada technology. If your organization is comfortable using unsupported software and taking responsibility for obtaining a version of GNAT that meets your needs, then that's fine with us, just so long as you realize that we make no guarantees in this case. Indeed, the classical Free Software disclaimer definitely applies in this case: 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. I reemphasize that Ada Core Technologies has no objections to you using the public version of GNAT for any purpose you like. We only recommend the use of the public version for educational and research purposes, because we don't recommend the use of unsupported software (certainly that's our own internal policy at Ada Core Technologies). The only issue here is that everyone is clear. We very often get people who are quite confused on this issue. Back in September, I had a "Y2K Compliance Officer" from some organization literally screaming at me because we refused to give Y2K certification for the public version "WELL WHO CAN GIVE THIS CERTIFICATION THEN?" "no one that I know of." "WELL THIS IS AN ACT PRODUCT RIGHT?" "no, that's incorrect" More interchange, getting nowhere, and no doubt he ended up deciding that Ada Core Technologies did not stand behind its products :-) Ada Core Technologies is committed to continued releasing of public versions of GNAT, including full easily installable binary releases. But these public products are NOT products of our company, merely something we make available on an as-is basis for those who can make use of unsupported software. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2000-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > like. We only recommend the use of the public version for > educational and research purposes, because we don't recommend > the use of unsupported software (certainly that's our own > internal policy at Ada Core Technologies). So you only use versions of tar and gzip for win32 that are supplied in the commercial Cygwin package sold by RedHat? Do you only use it on its one officially supported platform (NT service pack 3)? -- T.E.D. Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com Work - mailto:dennison@ssd.fsi.com WWW - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html ICQ - 10545591 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter 2000-04-13 0:00 Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter Ken Garlington 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 49+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 2000-04-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ken Garlington wrote: > > http://www.ghs.com/html/press/20/200407j.html Before I left Pratt, I know we were seriously looking at the Aonix compiler for the JSF engine control. (I think we took it for one of the commercial engines.) Don't know where that stands now. The article says that there is a C/C++ component to the product. Do you know if/how much/what parts of the JSF software they plan on using C/C++? MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "I'd trade it all for just a little more" -- Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10] ====================================================================== ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
* Re: Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter Marin D. Condic @ 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 49+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2000-04-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <38F60576.58C6D4E5@quadruscorp.com>, "Marin D. Condic" <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote: > The article says that there is a C/C++ component to the product. Do > you know if/how much/what parts of the JSF software they plan on using > C/C++? There's a C/C++ component to GreenHills AdaMulti. I'm not sure the article says those components are being used (or even purchased) for the JSF project. If they aren't it would be a bit odd to have mentioned it. But then again, this *was* a press release from Green Hills. They may just be anxious to name-drop every product they have. :-) -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 49+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-05-10 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 49+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2000-04-13 0:00 Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter Ken Garlington 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-04-14 0:00 ` David Gillon 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Steve Arnold 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Paul Makepeace 2000-04-24 0:00 ` Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) Wes Groleau 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-26 0:00 ` tmoran 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 2000-04-29 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 2000-04-29 0:00 ` tmoran 2000-05-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-03 0:00 ` Matthew Woodcraft 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-10 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-06 0:00 ` Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Ada test example - Linux Software Installer Larry Kilgallen 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-08 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Lack of Mature Tools (was: Lockheed Martin, Green Hills, etc.) Robert Dewar 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Florian Weimer 2000-05-05 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 2000-05-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Ken Garlington 2000-05-04 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-05-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-05-04 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 2000-05-02 0:00 ` Pascal Obry 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 2000-04-26 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-04-26 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Lockheed Martin Chooses Green Hills Ada for Joint Strike Fighter Marin D. Condic 2000-04-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox