From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.196.170 with SMTP id in10mr19509322pac.47.1422918234419; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:03:54 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.225.132 with SMTP id rk4mr30295obc.4.1422918234124; Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:03:54 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!hl2no6140273igb.0!news-out.google.com!qk8ni19963igc.0!nntp.google.com!hl2no8120834igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 15:03:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.18.241.25; posting-account=HQu3XwoAAACgXAZiVLlGuYCkuhxw8i0w NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.18.241.25 References: <0Kgqw.953330$_k.685364@fx16.iad> <199c826a-923e-497f-a8e2-9e732c8a5665@googlegroups.com> <87bnmetex4.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4ae7f0d5-d681-4be9-95bc-b5e789b3ad40@googlegroups.com> <87tx06rve6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <87lhlirpk0.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <4984c229-bdcd-4032-bd88-cde66482e6df@googlegroups.com> <6950687c-7b03-440e-ba15-e1092f86a3d0@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware From: "Jedi Tek'Unum" Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 23:03:54 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:24854 Date: 2015-02-02T15:03:53-08:00 List-Id: On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 2:44:20 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Jedi Tek'Unum" wrote in message=20 > > So here we are 30+ years since Ada was created and 20+ years since GNAT > > was created. An ISO standard language. Still fractured (3 different > > levels - FSF/GPL/Pro) and still huge platform availability barriers. >=20 > Now you're complaining that there is *too* much choice in Ada. Choice is good when it is similarly functional options. Valid code that do= esn't work on all of them is a problem! The non-Pro should be the bleeding edge constantly being updated with fixes= and enhancements. The Pro should be the delayed quality version. > That's weird,=20 > Linux doesn't seem to have a problem with too much "fracturing" (Ubuntu,= =20 > Debian, Red Hat, ad nausum...). Nor with platform availability (during mo= st=20 > of its history, it was only practically available on x86). Not much=20 > difference between Linux and GNAT on that. I don't use Linux for a variety of reasons, that being one. I suppose I'm now considered outdated but when something isn't available fo= r Solaris something is wrong. Perhaps the ACT thinking is that the GPL ver= sion only needs to be on "Desktop" OSes. (Probably because they only see i= t as an evaluation release and a minimal way to appear to be complying with= the GPL.) Yet this retired guy runs Solaris on his server because it simpl= y kicks butt. The same argument about using Ada because it is the best lan= guage applies to OSes too. (Yeh, I can [and have] built Ada for Solaris - = painfully.) > Can't even imagine what you mean by this. Ada, as tool, will never make a= s=20 > much money as less professional languages. That's because you can't sell= =20 > ongoing maintance to fix software that works right (and thus doesn't need= to=20 > be fixed). So Ada kills itself then? > AdaCore is doing the only thing that makes sense to monitize Ada. If ther= e=20 > was any other way that made sense, my guess is that AdaCore would have tr= ied=20 > it already. And that is the problem. A programming language largely controlled by one = company that needs to monetize it. Seems that Sun was able to create Java and monetize it (even more so with O= racle). Yet I can still use it for my own development for free. (Same for= Solaris.) Free for non-commercial uses is a perfect balance and it works.= Linux is free yet lots of companies seem to be making a lot of money on i= t. I just don't believe that there isn't a way that can work for everyone. > Sadly, I don't think there is much future for doing things well, because = for=20 > that one can neither sell maintenance nor get much effort for improvement= .=20 > Which ultimately leads to a bleak future for humanity, IMHO. Agreed. So how can we fix it?