Re: [Swarm-Support] Followup: found work-around for missing~/swarmarchiver.scm too

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Paul Johnson wrote:
> But I ask you this.  If those people who make gcc can cause havoc with 
> a little thing like the handling of the number 50, what devistation 
> can they wreak when they start talking about executable stacks, 
> trampolines, and other abstractions that I can barely grasp.
I would suggest you keep a machine around that has a stable operating 
system and a stable install of Swarm.  You can't expect that after 
dozens of packages get upgraded from a typical Fedora 5 `yum update' 
(which I presume none of which has paid support by you or your 
university), that something isn't going to break. 

Someone once snarked, when my job was to work on Swarm, "What do you 
mean, you `maintain' Swarm -- it breaks by itself?"   As you can see it 
does.   Btw, it's not the "gods of GNU" that broke the toolchain, it's 
Apple and other vendors who know better than their users what programs 
are safe to run.

Marcus