This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: Gcc installation problem
- From: "Long Fei" <lfei at ecn dot purdue dot edu>
- To: "'Dan Kegel'" <dank at kegel dot com>, "'Mike Stump'" <mrs at apple dot com>
- Cc: "'GCC Mailing List'" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 16:52:35 -0500
- Subject: RE: Gcc installation problem
Personally I think specifying "RH" won't make the situation any better.
Since GNU always call Linux distributions GNU/Linux, it naturally should
be GNU/gcc.
It's an interesting topic for debate if GNU should be blamed for
software defects under GPL ---- my personally feeling is yes (at least
to a certain degree), if GPL takes the credit automatically for GNU,
shoud it do with responsibilities as well. It shouldn't hurt the
reputation of GNU since every GPL software comes with the disclaimer,
which shrugs off the accountability (as well as credibility ?).
--Long
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Kegel [mailto:dank@kegel.com]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 2:36 PM
To: Mike Stump
Cc: lfei@ecn.purdue.edu; GCC Mailing List
Subject: Re: Gcc installation problem
Mike Stump wrote:
> On Saturday, August 16, 2003, at 01:46 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's quite fair to call RH's gcc "2.96" defective; it's
>> just poorly named.
>
>
> No, it isn't poorly named either. That happens to be the best name
> for it.
gcc-2.96-rh would have pissed off gnu less.
- Dan
--
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045