iajrz

It is if they don't redist the kernel code they're using - if it's GPL'd, and you redistribute the binaries, you acquire the responsibility to redist the source.

evidence that they've modified, not afaict. But refusing to give up the GPL'd code, even if stock, is a violation. And there are no sizes to license violations.

But do we know most young people prefer a fixed salary instead of undertaking? How do we know that?

Try Lisp. You'll see most modern languages -- Objective C, Ruby, Java, &c -- and not so modern languages as well, don't have much that Lisp doesn't offer. That the pomposity may not be the best way is but a matter of opinion. But features? We can sit down and count those. I encourage you to learn Lisp. It's enlightening.

Probably RCS http://www.gnu.org/software/rcs/; It's a fact that it used CVS, then SVN at some point (see https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/branches/CYGNUS/, a branch created by cvs2svn, a migration tool)

EDIT: Apparently all previous history was lost when they implemented CVS, circa 1997. We could always ask someone in the oldest maintainers file available (https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/MAINTAINERS?revision=1...) and have the real answer.

dell workstation, HP notebook

Ah, it's important to write the code for easy replacement, at least. Make it easy to kill only chunks.

It's not complex at all. How can it be confusing? I was confused by the author's confusion :-/