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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7f3ed9f7030da79b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Corey Minyard Subject: Re: Open-Source and programming style Date: 1998/11/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 412295852 Sender: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com References: <364d0243.39960214@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net> <01be0ff2$6dd17b60$96a55c8b@aptiva> <72knmb$q79$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <01be1089$329f0980$50a55c8b@aptiva> <364f3bbe.214201@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net> Organization: Wonderforce Research Reply-To: minyard@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-11-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Andi Kleen writes: > > Regarding your assertion that big Open Source software always have a fixed > spec because they're cloning something: good counter examples are GNU emacs > and PGP (before it went commercial) > Even if part of a piece of software is well-understood, it doesn't mean that the whole thing is. For instance, for gcc, the front-end was well defined but the back-end is, well, quite unique. And quite powerful, too, once you understand it. So the front-end design had a defined specification but the back end is RMS's own scheme. At least that's how I understand it, I don't think it was stolen from anywhere. -- Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@acm.org Work: minyard@nortel.ca UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com