Re: first contact
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:42:00PM +0100, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> Of course the Hurd project shouldn't go out of its way to adapt to
> non-free infrastructure (how free are the algorithms in your x86,
> though?), but I have a little trouble combining your firm standpoint
> with the fact that the GNU project is making an effort to make Glibc run
> on Solaris, and GCC on Windows.
I think I was the last person to look at making glibc work on Solaris.
I can assure that it was not done on behalf of GNU in any way. I also
don't think that many folks outside of RedHat are actively working on
making gcc run on windows. Certainly, I don't think there's anything
more than a passing reference to cygwin or djgpp on www.gnu.org.
> As far as I can see, GNU has never made a point of making it hard to
> interoperate badly with non-free software. On the contrary, it makes
> every effort to adhere to standards, even if that means better
> interoperability with non-free software. That's sane policy, IMHO.
In what way are we making it difficult? I don't think that the non-existant
patches have been helf up to any higher scrutiny that everything else
that gets committed. What we say is that the GNU developpers choose
to only actively develop and support Free software. As a side effect,
if you have a problem with using the Hurd in relation to non-free software,
you need to fix it yourself.
I'm also fairly certain that noone has ever refused to answer technical
questions. But I do suspect that if VmWare behaves differently than
an i386 processor in ways that are important to us that those bugs
should be reported to that upstream.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
--
When you get to the heart,
use a knife and fork.
- Instructions for eating an artichoke.
Reply to: