przemek klosowski wrote:
>
>> >>
>> > At that level of software products you are right, but that is only=20 part
>> > of the story. The open source has put a lot of pressure on=20 innovation in
>> > software technology. When expectations are that software products=20 are
>> > low or zero cost there is less potential reward for taking=20 speculative
>> > risk exploring new ideas.
>> >
>> > The whole industry suffers. We are using operating systems that were
>> > designed 20 years ago, running for the most part on processors with
>> > instruction sets designed for hand written assembler.
>>
>> Walter, you obviously have a track record of innovation in this=20 industry
>> that gives you first dibs on speaking on this topic, but I just don't=20 see
>> your point. Are you claiming that the progress in embedded technology
>> in the Open Source era, which I would arbitrarily define as the last=20 10
>> years, was significantly impaired? I just don't see it this way. >
>The open source has had the effect of putting price pressure on
>innovation in software technology by making lowering the potential
>reward ./ risk ratio. The open source movement has not embraced
>standards and has not generally participated in the standards process.
I assume here you are speaking from your own experiences with the c standards processes.
Since you probably have some ideas about this, how would a single representative be selected and representative of the "open source movement" in the standards processes? I mean this seriously. I'm curious how that might be made to work well and I'd like to hear your thoughts about it.
It might be that the well-worn paths in the standards processes are tuned, more because of historical circumstances, to the traditional models that existed earlier and it may be expecting a lot to imagine a situation with an "open source movement" working without some significant adaptations.
In the above, I am intentionally conflating "open source movement" with GNU c. I know I'm doing that "on the table." I intend it as a prod to ask you to tease the two things apart, again. In so doing, that I understand the comments better.
GCC has not participated in any meaningful way in WG14 the
>ISO international standards group (represented in the US
>by ANSI). What is more disturbing is GCC has not made a
>significant attempt to be ANSI/ISO compliant. The test suite
>distributed with GCC is a regression list of past bugs and
>development \test cases not a language syntax test of organized
>code generation test.
Well, that regression list is for obvious reasons