On 20 September 2014 00:52, Ian Grant wrote: > None of this is useful to me. I'm trying to make a case for why people > should have confidence in GNU software. You are NOT helping me in > that, I assure you,
You seem to have already made up your mind it's GNU crap. Being insulting is a funny way to ask for help. > > We need to publish some simple steps that people can take to reassure > themselves that the 64MB binaries that GCC 4.9 produces on Linux > systems are normal and nothing to worry about, If you run strip on the binaries and they get smaller, that means the additional space is not taken up with executable code, but optional debug info (in the DWARF format). Unless your strip command has been compromised too, of course. If you're not familiar with the strip and size commands, or prepared to use their man pages, I have to wonder what sort of case you're able to make for having confidence in any software. > Why is that so hard? Where are the GCC experts on this list. Where are > the people that actually care about the reputation of the FSF? They've probably got better things to do than engage with someone who comes out with crap like "dangerous GNU crap".
