|Payware ??? email@example.com (Paul Mann) (1997-12-16)|
|Re: Payware ??? firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-12-16)|
|Re: Payware ??? email@example.com (1997-12-17)|
|Re: Payware ??? firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-12-19)|
|Re: Payware ??? email@example.com (Laurent Guerby) (1997-12-23)|
|From:||Laurent Guerby <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||23 Dec 1997 22:51:12 -0500|
|Keywords:||tools, practice, GCC|
> "- they [GCC and GNAT] have a large and active user communities, which
> compensates for the lack of conventional support and maintenance; -
> errors in are widely reported and remedies and/or workaround solutions
> are published by the same users;"
> This official statement apparently means that the quality of informal
> support which comes with most free software is at least as good as
> that offered with commercial products.
While I agree that informal support is often quite good, the
official statement you mention is false, there is no "lack of
conventional support and maintenance" for GCC and GNAT at
least. See Cygnus <http://www.cygnus.com/> for most GCC targets,
other companies for other GCC targets, Ada Core Technologies
<http://www.gnat.com/> and ACT Europe <http://www.act-europe.fr/>
for GNAT, OAR for RTEMS <http://www.oarcorp.com/>, etc.
All these companies sell "conventional support and maintenance" for
GNU software (the only non conventional thing around is that the
software itself is free with sources ;-), following "the model of
free software economy popularized by Richard Stallman" you mention
later in your post.
Laurent Guerby <email@example.com>, Team Ada.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.