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