jacob navia wrote:
> Charlie Gordon wrote:
> > No, IMHO, you should publish the source, as is done for gcc and lcc.
> >
> >> :-)
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
>
> Do *you* Charlie?
>
> Please let me have all your work for the last 12 years for free!
> And please give me all the products your company sells for free too.
>
> All source code, documentation, etc, so that I can use it without paying
> you a penny.
>
> Of course you will not pay me the money *I paid* for the
> source of lcc. That is my problem of course, not yours.
>
> I remember that you told that you sell compilers. I *can*
> imagine that having the source code of a compiler could
> you make some money...
>
> But I am sorry, I will sell my product myself.

This sort of despicable selfishness makes me ashamed to share the same
earth as some people. Who cares if software is a social good, and if
sharing free software benefits the whole community? To hell with
everyone else, as long as you can make some money off the back of
someone else's work developing lcc in the first place! Just sickening.

It's interesting to see the progression from someone making a slightly
negative comment about lcc-win32, through Navia reacting sourly but
not abusively, and finally to Navia unleashing an unwarranted torrent
of abuse against Charlie Gordon, one of the posters to clc who (in
stark contrast to Navia) actually knows something about C and is
willing to other people without always being driven by this
morbid obsession with money.

rosewater@mailinator.com writes:

> jacob navia wrote:
>> Charlie Gordon wrote:
>> > No, IMHO, you should publish the source, as is done for gcc and lcc.
>> >
>> >> :-)
>> >
>> > Indeed.
>> >
>>
>> Do *you* Charlie?
>>
>> Please let me have all your work for the last 12 years for free!
>> And please give me all the products your company sells for free too.
>>
>> All source code, documentation, etc, so that I can use it without paying
>> you a penny.
>>
>> Of course you will not pay me the money *I paid* for the
>> source of lcc. That is my problem of course, not yours.
>>
>> I remember that you told that you sell compilers. I *can*
>> imagine that having the source code of a compiler could
>> you make some money...
>>
>> But I am sorry, I will sell my product myself.
>
> This sort of despicable selfishness makes me ashamed to share the same
> earth as some people. Who cares if software is a social good, and if
> sharing free software benefits the whole community? To hell with
> everyone else, as long as you can make some money off the back of
> someone else's work developing lcc in the first place! Just sickening.

Did you read Jacob's comments or are you just another "he who shall not
be named" sock puppet?

>
> It's interesting to see the progression from someone making a slightly
> negative comment about lcc-win32, through Navia reacting sourly but
> not abusively, and finally to Navia unleashing an unwarranted torrent
> of abuse against Charlie Gordon, one of the posters to clc who (in

Charlie Gordon was knocking the compiler, Jacob's work and suggesting
that Jacob had a duty to release his work for free. When Charlie Gordon
does the same then maybe, just maybe, CG can dictate to Jacob just how
he should behave.

> stark contrast to Navia) actually knows something about C and is
> willing to other people without always being driven by this
> morbid obsession with money.

Be sure to wash your tongue - there are brown bits on it.

Yet another example of a minority's obsession with Jacob and his work.

Richard wrote:
> Charlie Gordon was knocking the compiler, Jacob's work and suggesting
> that Jacob had a duty to release his work for free. When Charlie Gordon
> does the same then maybe, just maybe, CG can dictate to Jacob just how
> he should behave.

Utter rubbish. Charlie made a joke, which happened to have a serious
point to it. Of course, Navia has no sense of humor, and went off on
one of his self-righteous, self-justifying, and above all self-
obsessed rants.

The original comment (not made by Charlie) was "but lcc-win is a
horrible C compiler." It's not unnecessarily rude, merely a simple
statement of fact. But Navia takes high offense, and for some reason
you decide to back the loser.

In article <jaafu4-52q.ln1@news.individual.net>,
the good and sensible Richard <rgrdev@gmail.com> eloquently wrote:
....
>> This sort of despicable selfishness makes me ashamed to share the same
>> earth as some people. Who cares if software is a social good, and if
>> sharing free software benefits the whole community? To hell with
>> everyone else, as long as you can make some money off the back of
>> someone else's work developing lcc in the first place! Just sickening.

And what is particularly amusing about this is that they (the regs and
their sock puppets) are, at the same time, telling us all what a pile of
sh*t Jacob's product is and how they all want to get more of it.

Why else ask for the sources???

>Did you read Jacob's comments or are you just another "he who shall not
>be named" sock puppet?

No doubt.

<rosewater@mailinator.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1192558603.431552.70210@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.co m...
> Richard wrote:
>> Charlie Gordon was knocking the compiler, Jacob's work and suggesting
>> that Jacob had a duty to release his work for free. When Charlie Gordon
>> does the same then maybe, just maybe, CG can dictate to Jacob just how
>> he should behave.
>
> Utter rubbish. Charlie made a joke, which happened to have a serious
> point to it. Of course, Navia has no sense of humor, and went off on
> one of his self-righteous, self-justifying, and above all self-
> obsessed rants.
>
> The original comment (not made by Charlie) was "but lcc-win is a
> horrible C compiler." It's not unnecessarily rude, merely a simple
> statement of fact. But Navia takes high offense, and for some reason
> you decide to back the loser.

Yes, I made two jokes.
I was trying to understate the "horrible" comment.
I was not knocking the compiler at all.
I was not dictating Jacob anything, but stating my opinion.
As far as rudeness goes, you rosewater are among the worst abusers on the
newsgroup.

--
Chqrlie.

rosewater@mailinator.com writes:
[...]
> The original comment (not made by Charlie) was "but lcc-win is a
> horrible C compiler." It's not unnecessarily rude, merely a simple
> statement of fact. But Navia takes high offense, and for some reason
> you decide to back the loser.

It is not a simple statement of fact. It is unnecessarily rude and
deliberately inflammatory.

Since you know how jacob reacts to such insults, I can only assume you
were trying to elicit exactly that reaction.

You are a troll. Please go away.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Kenny McCormack wrote:
....
> And what is particularly amusing about this is that they (the regs and
> their sock puppets) are, at the same time, telling us all what a pile of
> sh*t Jacob's product is and how they all want to get more of it.
>
> Why else ask for the sources???

As I understand it, at least some of the people who are challenging
him to provide source code, are not doing so because they want to use
his compiler. They're doing it in the expectation that if he does
provide his source code they will be able to use it to prove that his
code is just as bad as they believe his understanding of C to be. It's
one thing to explain C badly in a newsgroup message. Many people who
understand C perfectly have a hard time explaining their understanding
verbally, particularly if it's not in their native language. It's a
much more serious thing to write C badly in software that you're
actually charging people for permission to use. They suspect that he
has done so, but would prefer to have actual proof

jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
> Kenny McCormack wrote:
> ...
>> And what is particularly amusing about this is that they (the regs and
>> their sock puppets) are, at the same time, telling us all what a pile of
>> sh*t Jacob's product is and how they all want to get more of it.
>>
>> Why else ask for the sources???
>
> As I understand it, at least some of the people who are challenging
> him to provide source code, are not doing so because they want to use
> his compiler. They're doing it in the expectation that if he does
> provide his source code they will be able to use it to prove that his
> code is just as bad as they believe his understanding of C to be. It's
> one thing to explain C badly in a newsgroup message. Many people who
> understand C perfectly have a hard time explaining their understanding
> verbally, particularly if it's not in their native language. It's a
> much more serious thing to write C badly in software that you're
> actually charging people for permission to use. They suspect that he
> has done so, but would prefer to have actual proof
>

My program is distributed freely. That is why the accuse me
(anonymously) of a "morbid interest for money". Then, I do not
know how C works, nor I do know anything at all. The fact that my
programs work and are used by tens of thousands of users all
over the wold is a proof that I do not know how to program.

lcc-win32 has gone beyond half a *million* downloads. This
is the PROOF that I have no knowledge of C: it is one of the
most popular C99 implementations in the world.

Obviously those people have produced software more successful
than mine, specially Mark McIntyre, "old wolf" etc... Everyone
knows about them. *Their* programs can also be freely downloaded
isn't it?

Yet another problem for those people is the fact that I have
implemented the standard C, not some obsolete standard they appreciate.
Because they have all the time "standard C" in their mouths but when
it comes to the real standard then they say that... well they do not
like it, that nobody uses it, etc etc.

Since my program works, and people like it, it is badly written,
OBVIOUSLY!

Your logic is the same logic that goes on and on here:

If I have people that insult me anonymously, *I* am responsible for
*their* behavior because by writing and distributing a C compiler for
free I somehow "provoked" them into that. They just couldn't do
otherwise the poor people.

So let's stop this polemic. I will not reply to any messages in this
thread, and give these people more importance than what they actually
have.

I will just go on working for the C community as I have done since
more than 12 years.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32