Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:43:18 -0800 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Trent Waddington" <s337240@student.uq.edu.au>, <freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Stallman stalls again Message-ID: <003001c09bc9$314aeea0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.30.0102210356590.15120-100000@student.uq.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Trent Waddington > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 11:29 AM > To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Stallman stalls again > > more forthcoming. This is the response I got. RMS essentially tells me > to bury the code in the backyard because it might be "dangerous". > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:59:32 -0700 (MST) > From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> > To: s337240@student.uq.edu.au > Subject: Re: java backend > > If it is possible to compile languages such as C into Java byte codes, > I see a great danger. The danger is that people will use Java byte > codes to hook GCC up to proprietary back ends and proprietary front > ends. They could also generate Java byte codes, run a proprietary > optimizer, and feed the result back into GCC. In effect, the support > for Java byte codes would undermine the goals of the GPL. > I've read this statement 6 times putting myself into the most convoluted frame of mind possible and I still can't understand how this undermines the goals of GPL, even if people start doing what Stallman says they can do. Java's just another tool, nowhere near as popular as C. It's getting close to peaking anyway, in 10 years it's going to be in just another of those cubbyholes that Perl, Sed, Awk, PHP, HTML and all the rest of them are in. Your never going to see anything come along and dislodge C and C++ from their positions, just as your never going to see a special-purpose PC (like a webTV box or a Sony Playstation) dislodge the general purpose desktop PC. After all, everyone with a toolbox has a set of screwdrivers, but not everyone with a toolbox has a 1/2 inch pipe threader. Could someone explain Stallman's logic here? Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003001c09bc9$314aeea0$1401a8c0>