Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!ece-csc!ncsuvx!gatech!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!utastro!bigtex!james From: james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: free versions of complex software (Re: So let's talk about FSF) Message-ID: <8329@bigtex.uucp> Date: 22 Sep 88 15:32:37 GMT References: <780@proxftl.UUCP> <600@sering.cwi.nl> <2133@stpstn.UUCP> Reply-To: james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) Organization: F.B.N. Software, Austin TX Lines: 23 In article <2133@stpstn.UUCP>, aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) wrote: > >is a thousand times better: EVERYBODY can get it, it doesn't > >cost ANYTHING and we get SOURCE!!! > Yeah, sure, but the source won't compile, and it costs you more > programmer $$ to make it compile than it would cost you to buy > the unbuggy commercial product to begin with. GNU emacs is less buggy than the vi implementation I have. More importantly, the users I have (particularly those who normally use Macintoshes) refuse to use vi under any circumstances (due to user unfriendliness). As for "unbuggy commercial products", it's easier to bring up GNU C than to bring up the news software under the AT&T PCC on my machine. I think we have someone else here who hasn't tried the alternatives... Perhaps GNU and other free software is only for those who can go in and fix bugs, but a fair number of us do fall in that catagory - and it's a lot easier to fix source than a binary. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Phone: 512-346-2444 10926 Jollyville Rd #901 Austin TX 78759