On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 17:38 +0200, Karel Gardas wrote: > That's interesting information. But let say I also do have some experience > with egcs/gcc these days at least from C++ user point of view and I can > only add that I was happy like a small child trying egcs1.0.1 since it > provided me with the C++ compiler which consumed _only_ about 30-40MB of > RAM for compiling our project in comparison with gcc of these days which > spent twice this amount. Note: 32MB RAM was quite a lot in 1996/7. > > So thanks to egcs hackers I've been able to complete my school projects > with much less pain. > > Also the second note: current GCC release manager is doing good job IMHO > provided as a commercial service by his small company to the big IT > sponsor. I think this is also needed to note since every coin has two > sides... >
Without contradicting myself, I second you on both points and will add a third element of praise. The current GCC project is arguably the most professionally run example of a public free software project there is. I don't mean that as faint praise, even though the bar of comparison to other projects is pretty low -- their bar is very high. The current GCC project is very respectful of the volunteer community -- mostly by greeting eager-beaver newbies with a kind of benign neglect while being open and helpful to clearly competent and self-interested contributors. Day to day, it is largely an inter-corporate effort with a few academics in the mix: good job. I've praised them in those ways in the past and stand by that praise. Could we have and should we have wound up with a more facile collection of free software compiler technology? I believe so. Was it necessary to run roughshod over the GNU project? I believe not. Was a pattern demonstrated, and now repeated, for how to take over projects and communities? Certainly so. Is GCC in a bit of a tough spot because of its intractability relative to the demands of the day? You betcha. And I say that that's a foreseeable consequence of the dog-pile approach that forced the initial split and takeover. Does "every coin have two sides"? I'm not seeing any upside to the trashing of the Arch project. -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
