Re: rfc: new libgcc build mechanism

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <0005131832.AA00283@ivan.Harhan.ORG>you write:
  > Mo McKinlay <mmckinlay@labs.interopen.org> wrote:
  > 
  > > Actually, what I find more amusing is the fact that BSD is a free
  > > replacement for UNIX. Which is exactly what the GNU project aims for,
  > > albeit with different licensing terms. I fail to see how BSD *can* be
  > > "pure UNIX", when "pure UNIX" is exactly what BSD was created to provide
  > > an alternative for.
  > 
  > Wrong. Or rather, we are talking about different things. You are talking ab
  > out
  > "BSD derivatives" like BSDI and Free/Net/OpenBSD. I'm talking about the act
  > ual
  > BSD, i.e., Berkeley Software Distribution, the 9-track tape shipped from UC
  > Berkeley for bootstrapping huge 3-phase VAXen. That one *is* pure UNIX: it 
  > is
  > an incremental improvement on V7 and 32V, has 100% of Ritchie and Thompson'
  > s
  > original UNIX code in it just like V7 and 32V, is 100% faithful to pure UNI
  > X in
  > ideology and all design decisions, and requires a UNIX source license (pure
  > UNIX does not exist in binary-only form, never did, and never will). And it
  > isn't free in terms of power alone. Have you ever seen an electric bill for
  >  a
  > VAX-11/780?
Can we please take this discussion elsewhere.  This has nothing to do with
GCC or autoconf.


I'm sure there's a more appropriate place y'all can discuss the virtues of
historical versions of Unix.


jeff