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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: Ronald Cole Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/08/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268486528 References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pim4l$5m3$1@news.nyu.edu> <5ptv7r$4e2$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pu5va$64o$1@news.nyu.edu> <5qdof6$iav$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <33D6FA2B.9B7@ix.netcom.com> <33E00855.2BA7@ix.netcom.com> Organization: RidgeNet - SLIP/PPP Internet, Ridgecrest, CA. (760) 371-3501 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-08-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Excellent filibuster, Robert! Not only, didn't you answer my challenge, but you aptly demonstrated that you still couldn't be bothered to actually read what I've been writing!! Still, you post some directly verifiable "policies" of ACT. Let's see how they fair, eh? dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > There is warrantied > software that is unreliable, and there is unwarrantied software that is > reliable. ACT works hard to make sure that the publicly available vesions > of GNAT fall into the second category. "Publicly available versions of GNAT are reliable". Please define "reliable", Robert. I've already demonstrated that by following your own meticulous instructions, that public version 3.09 was unable to bootstrap itself with the binary release due to a bad bug fix you chose to include just a day before you made the release. > Yes, we understand that the enthusiasts around (like Ronald...) > do not care about reliability. On the contrary, Robert! Concern about the "reliability" of your public releases is what prompted my first post on the subject! > ACT has established a set of policies for handling GNAT releases that > concentrate first and foremost on providing high reliability. Which policy was it that allowed you to place a bug fix in a public release that was clearly untested by your myriad of customers on the HPUX platform, and which clearly had to come to the attention of the ACT employee that performed the HPUX port? > I think that from our point of view, enough has been said in this thread > which has not been a particularly productive one, and this will act as > our final statement in the matter. If your 3.10 HPUX binary release can compile every file in the 3.10 source distribution with at least -O optimization to create a byte-identical copy of gnat1, then I would have to say that part of this thread was *very* productive. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My PGP fingerprint: E9 A8 E3 68 61 88 EF 43 56 2B CE 3E E9 8F 3F 2B