5 ms·

Is this the same compiler that famously spurred Richard Stallman to create GCC [1] when its author "responded derisively, stating that the university was free b

by ptx 8mo ago

Is this the same compiler that famously spurred Richard Stallman to create GCC [1] when its author "responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the compiler was not"? It seems to be free now anyway, since 2005 according to the git history, under a 3-clause BSD license. [1] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
samemrecebi 8mo ago
this does not suprise me at all if other stories i heard are true.
- anonzzzies 8mo ago
  Go on...
  - samemrecebi 8mo ago
    nothing bad but just doenst suprise me with the reaction he gave to stalman
jacquesm 8mo ago
The relevant bit: " Shortly before beginning the GNU Project, I heard about the Free University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for “free” is written with a v.) This was a compiler designed to handle multiple languages, including C and Pascal, and to support multiple target machines. I wrote to its author asking if GNU could use it. He responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the compiler was not. I therefore decided that my first program for the GNU Project would be a multilanguage, multiplatform compiler." And not only was the university 'free' and the compiler not, neither was 'Minix', which was put out there through Prentice Hall in a series of books that you had to pay a fairly ridiculous amount of money for if you were a student there. So the VU had the two main components of the free software world in their hand and botched them both because of simple greed. I love it how RMS has both these quotes in the same text: "Please don't fall into the practice of calling the whole system “Linux,” since that means attributing our work to someone else. Please give us equal mention." "This makes it difficult to write free drivers so that Linux and XFree86 can support new hardware." And there are only a few lines between those quotes.
- mqus 8mo ago
  Re your last paragraphs: I think RMS really meant just the Linux kernel when he wrote that(the topic is drivers, after all), not GNU/Linux, the OS or GNU/Linux, "the system". So it can be argued that he isn't really contradicting himself
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
    Agreed. As a practical example, Alpine Linux isn't a GNU/Linux OS, but it does use Linux+Xorg graphics drivers.
- rogerbinns 8mo ago
  I was one of those students saving up the large sum for the book, when Linux was announced. There were other tensions at the time - the biggest was that Minix on 8086 was 16 bit real mode only. Someone had developed patches to run in 32 bit protected mode, but they were invasive and large, and the Minix maintainers would not integrate them as the increased complexity would not help the mission of Minix being easy to learn and tinker with. The filesystem code was also single threaded, essentially doing one request at a time. IIRC there were patches to address that too, also not integrated for the same reason. (Note that the books included print outs of the source so keeping it short did matter.) This explains the final 2 sentences of the original Linux announcement: > PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT portable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(. The book publisher is blamed for preventing Minix from being freely distributed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix#Licensing
  - cryptonector 8mo ago
    Terrible mistakes. People keep repeating these mistakes. Makes me think of Larry McVoy.
  - jacquesm 8mo ago
    Tanenbaum made that deal. He collected royalties from the book (as was his right) but it clearly was a way to make money for him. Just another part of the textbook grift because students were forced to work on Minix long after that that made any sense at all. Ironically, that single threaded nature of the FS made it a perfect match for my own little OS and I happily hacked it to pieces to bootstrap it using message passing into a FS executable. That trick probably saved me a year in bringing up the kernel to the point that the OS could compile itself, which greatly sped up development.
DonHopkins 8mo ago
UniPress, RMS's arch enemy Evil Software Hoarder, sold a commercial version of the Amsterdam Compiler Kit as well as Gosling's Emacs. https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/92-04-041 https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/92-04-041 UniPress made a PostScript back-end for ACK that they marketed with the NeWS version Emacs, whose slogan was "C for yourself: PostScript for NeWS!" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42838736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42838736 >UniPress ported and sold a commercial version of the "Extended Amsterdam Compiler Kit" for Andrew Tanenbaum for many CPUs and versions of Unix (like they also ported and sold his Unix version of Emacs for James Gosling), so Emacs might have been compiled with ACK on the Cray, but I don't recall. >During the late 80's and early 90's, UniPress's Enhanced ACK cost $9,995 for a full source license, $995 for an educational source license, with front ends for C, Pascal, BASIC, Modula-2, Occam, and Fortran, and backends for VAX, 68020, NS32000, Sparc, 80368, and others, on many contemporary versions of Unix. >Rehmi Post at UniPress also made a back-end for ACK that compiled C to PostScript for the NeWS window system and PostScript printers, called "c2ps", which cost $2,995 for binaries or $14,995 for sources. >Independently Arthur van Hoff wrote a different C to PostScript compiler called "PdB" at the Turing Institute, not related to c2ps. It was a much simpler, more powerful, more direct compiler written from scratch, and it supported object oriented PostScript programming in NeWS, subclassing PostScript from C or C from PostScript. I can't remember how much Turing sold it for, but I think it was less than c2ps. https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/92-04-041 https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/92-04-041 https://donhopkins.com/home/archive/NeWS/NeScheme.txt https://donhopkins.com/home/archive/NeWS/NeScheme.txt
- lioeters 8mo ago
  > cost $2,995 for binaries or $14,995 for sources My goodness, this is hard to imagine from today when open source has driven the price of software (code itself) to nil. And that's the price from decades ago. While I'm glad I don't have to pay 15K for a C to PostScript compiler, as someone who might have written similar software if I'd lived back in those days - I can imagine an alternate timeline where I'd be getting paid to write such tools instead of doing it as a hobby project. > NeScheme.txt Nice rabbit hole about LispScript, what a cool idea. I've been re-studying Scheme recently, its history and variants like s7, and was appreciating its elegance and smallness as a language, how relevant it still is. One of the books I'm reading uses Scheme for algorithmic music composition. (Notes from the Metalevel: An Introduction to Computer Composition)

by ptx 8mo ago

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

samemrecebi 8mo ago

this does not suprise me at all if other stories i heard are true.

anonzzzies 8mo ago
Go on...
- samemrecebi 8mo ago
  nothing bad but just doenst suprise me with the reaction he gave to stalman

jacquesm 8mo ago

The relevant bit: " Shortly before beginning the GNU Project, I heard about the Free University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for “free” is written with a v.) This was a compiler designed to handle multiple languages, including C and Pascal, and to support multiple target machines. I wrote to its author asking if GNU could use it. He responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the compiler was not. I therefore decided that my first program for the GNU Project would be a multilanguage, multiplatform compiler." And not only was the university 'free' and the compiler not, neither was 'Minix', which was put out there through Prentice Hall in a series of books that you had to pay a fairly ridiculous amount of money for if you were a student there. So the VU had the two main components of the free software world in their hand and botched them both because of simple greed. I love it how RMS has both these quotes in the same text: "Please don't fall into the practice of calling the whole system “Linux,” since that means attributing our work to someone else. Please give us equal mention." "This makes it difficult to write free drivers so that Linux and XFree86 can support new hardware." And there are only a few lines between those quotes.

mqus 8mo ago
Re your last paragraphs: I think RMS really meant just the Linux kernel when he wrote that(the topic is drivers, after all), not GNU/Linux, the OS or GNU/Linux, "the system". So it can be argued that he isn't really contradicting himself
- yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
  Agreed. As a practical example, Alpine Linux isn't a GNU/Linux OS, but it does use Linux+Xorg graphics drivers.
rogerbinns 8mo ago
I was one of those students saving up the large sum for the book, when Linux was announced. There were other tensions at the time - the biggest was that Minix on 8086 was 16 bit real mode only. Someone had developed patches to run in 32 bit protected mode, but they were invasive and large, and the Minix maintainers would not integrate them as the increased complexity would not help the mission of Minix being easy to learn and tinker with. The filesystem code was also single threaded, essentially doing one request at a time. IIRC there were patches to address that too, also not integrated for the same reason. (Note that the books included print outs of the source so keeping it short did matter.) This explains the final 2 sentences of the original Linux announcement: > PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT portable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(. The book publisher is blamed for preventing Minix from being freely distributed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix#Licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minix#Licensing
- cryptonector 8mo ago
  Terrible mistakes. People keep repeating these mistakes. Makes me think of Larry McVoy.
- jacquesm 8mo ago
  Tanenbaum made that deal. He collected royalties from the book (as was his right) but it clearly was a way to make money for him. Just another part of the textbook grift because students were forced to work on Minix long after that that made any sense at all. Ironically, that single threaded nature of the FS made it a perfect match for my own little OS and I happily hacked it to pieces to bootstrap it using message passing into a FS executable. That trick probably saved me a year in bringing up the kernel to the point that the OS could compile itself, which greatly sped up development.

DonHopkins 8mo ago

UniPress, RMS's arch enemy Evil Software Hoarder, sold a commercial version of the Amsterdam Compiler Kit as well as Gosling's Emacs. https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/92-04-041 https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/92-04-041 UniPress made a PostScript back-end for ACK that they marketed with the NeWS version Emacs, whose slogan was "C for yourself: PostScript for NeWS!" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42838736 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42838736 >UniPress ported and sold a commercial version of the "Extended Amsterdam Compiler Kit" for Andrew Tanenbaum for many CPUs and versions of Unix (like they also ported and sold his Unix version of Emacs for James Gosling), so Emacs might have been compiled with ACK on the Cray, but I don't recall. >During the late 80's and early 90's, UniPress's Enhanced ACK cost $9,995 for a full source license, $995 for an educational source license, with front ends for C, Pascal, BASIC, Modula-2, Occam, and Fortran, and backends for VAX, 68020, NS32000, Sparc, 80368, and others, on many contemporary versions of Unix. >Rehmi Post at UniPress also made a back-end for ACK that compiled C to PostScript for the NeWS window system and PostScript printers, called "c2ps", which cost $2,995 for binaries or $14,995 for sources. >Independently Arthur van Hoff wrote a different C to PostScript compiler called "PdB" at the Turing Institute, not related to c2ps. It was a much simpler, more powerful, more direct compiler written from scratch, and it supported object oriented PostScript programming in NeWS, subclassing PostScript from C or C from PostScript. I can't remember how much Turing sold it for, but I think it was less than c2ps. https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/92-04-041 https://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/92-04-041 https://donhopkins.com/home/archive/NeWS/NeScheme.txt https://donhopkins.com/home/archive/NeWS/NeScheme.txt

lioeters 8mo ago
> cost $2,995 for binaries or $14,995 for sources My goodness, this is hard to imagine from today when open source has driven the price of software (code itself) to nil. And that's the price from decades ago. While I'm glad I don't have to pay 15K for a C to PostScript compiler, as someone who might have written similar software if I'd lived back in those days - I can imagine an alternate timeline where I'd be getting paid to write such tools instead of doing it as a hobby project. > NeScheme.txt Nice rabbit hole about LispScript, what a cool idea. I've been re-studying Scheme recently, its history and variants like s7, and was appreciating its elegance and smallness as a language, how relevant it still is. One of the books I'm reading uses Scheme for algorithmic music composition. (Notes from the Metalevel: An Introduction to Computer Composition)