If Apple compiled Tiger with XLC, it would be 10-20% faster at everything right away. Instant speed boost with no negatives at all. No additional costs to end users. All positives, no negatives. XCode can use gcc, be free and still work fine. What, in this picture, is not to like?
FWIW, I'm with cubist on this one. Apple should use the compiler that generates the fastest code possible for OS X. They can distribute GCC and XCode that generates decent speed code and is library compatible with the OS; that's not that hard. Metrowerks still sells CodeWarrior for the Mac and that uses their own compiler and interfaces with the OS libraries.
Again, I like that the OS keeps getting faster, but I'm disappointed that Apple isn't using the fastest tool available in the first place.
I disagree completely with you guys. I would have no objection whatsoever if Apple compiled Mac OS X itself with XLC, but then distributed gcc with XCode. I would also like the option of buying XCode Pro for $400 or whatever it is. I think the percentage of Mac users who write code with XCode is fairly low - well below 1% - but it is very nice that Apple includes XCode.
Consider a different example. Sun sells Solaris 9 without a compiler. You don't get any compiler at all. You can download gcc for it and write applications. Sun doesn't use gcc to write Solaris, they use their own compiler. That compiler costs $500 IIRC. You can use gcc, or you can buy their compiler. The choice is yours.
If Apple compiled Tiger with XLC, it would be 10-20% faster at everything right away. Instant speed boost with no negatives at all. No additional costs to end users. All positives, no negatives. XCode can use gcc, be free and still work fine. What, in this picture, is not to like?
Actually cubist that's not that bad of an idea, but I think Apple likes the fact that they can distribute GCC for free, and it is the same compiler they develop, and compile OS X with. I think that point was made better earlier before you posted but I wanted to re-introduce it again. The fact that Apple is hiring developers to work on GCC is an obvious step in the right direction over the direction of the new (optional) compiler with an extra cost to the user.
I thought Apple used AIX for their compiler? As do the few big companies able to afford it; Adobe, and Microsoft.
....
AIX is not a compiler. AIX is IBM's version of Unix. You may be thinking about the development system that Apple used to port System 7.1 to the POWER architecture back in the early 1990's. Prior to the Power Mac, Apple used IBM RS/6000 workstations running AIX to port System 7.1 to the PowerPC. Later, our favorite fruit company sold AIX-based servers. However, Apple has not sold AIX since the release of MacOS X Server.
Currently, Apple makes gcc available with every copy of MacOS X at no extra cost. Apple gives its users the same compiler that it uses for its own development.
What do you mean 'at no extra cost'?
GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.
GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.
No extra cost means that Apple does not charge its users over the base OS. XCode includes GCC, but it is much, much more. It is arguably the best development system available anywhere. Even though GCC is free, the rest of XCode does not have to be. Despite the considerable effort that Apple put into XCode, it charges nothing for it over the base OS. Can Microsoft make the same claim? If Apple substituted XLC for GCC, then its development system could not be free. What's so shaky about that?
You were referring to GCC when you said 'at no extra cost', so I only referred to that point. The whole idea of Xcode being offered for free was something that I considered, but I saw it seperately from GCC because I thought you were alluding that Apple could charge for GCC if it so wished. Which they can't.
But, now that you mention Xcode and all the rest, the ground becomes firmer, and it's not shaky anymore.
GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.
Free is not as in cost, FSF makes that VERY clear. It is Free as in I am free to modify it as I see fit.
FSF has no problem if you charge for distributing software using any one of the FSF licenses as long as you make the source code easily available for free. There are no specific restrictions on what and how much you can charge for. The whole no-cost available complete source download thing enforces the low/no-cost aspect without even having to use any restrictions.
So it would be completely legal for Apple to charge for their version of GCC. But then they would be legally bound to make ALL their source changes public at the time of sale, something they don't want to HAVE to do. Apple often sits on it's source mods before committing, to sync with hardware and software release schedules, to avoid tipping anything by compiler feature upgrades.
Actually I am a bit surprised that they did not already in Tiger, but then who knows what IBM would charge them for that?
IBM charges a lot for the use of their compiler's if I remember correcly. Apple basically gives theirs away in the developers kit, so licensing IBM's compiler would probably bleed Apple dry within a few years.
IBM charges a lot for the use of their compiler's if I remember correcly. Apple basically gives theirs away in the developers kit, so licensing IBM's compiler would probably bleed Apple dry within a few years.
Remember that Apple also gave away MPW, its venerable development system for MacOS 9 and earlier operating systems.
I'm reading that people think Apple should compile OS X with XLC and then release tools for GCC.
This is a waste of resources and time.
All the Frameworks would have to be tested and refined with XLC since XLC would have to provide a custom linker and modifications to XLC to support the Objective-C runtime costing Apple more time between releases and personnel power devoted just to reinvent the wheel all for the idea of a small percentage of performance?
I guess people don't realize the amount of resources it takes to do such a task?
GCC 4 and subsequent revisions has had a ton of resources going into revamping it and everyone will soon reap the benefits.
NeXT has 16 years + of time invested in its frameworks using GCC. The compiler expertise at Apple is top-knotch.
People also don't seem to realize that this is the 8 or 9th chip architecture that the OS X technologies have been compiled, tested and deployed on. (this includes all NeXT CPU architectures plus a few that never were released from SUN during the Openstep initiative)
To dump GCC at this point is to put a bullet into the skulls of Apple Engineering collectively.
Just enjoy the improvements to GCC now that Apple has fixed the C/ObjC issues.
App developers want to develop on the tools the OS provider develops on which reassures them they will get the same type of performance experience in their apps that the OS provider gets out of its applications.
GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.
By the contents of your post I can tell you've never purchased OS X. You may have it. But you didn't get it in the box, It's obvious.
Those who have purchased a copy of OS X can see it right away.
Personally I think the developer tools alone are worth the price of the upgrade. Every major OS X release has sported major improvements in XCode, GCC and Interface Builder. Tiger has some waaaay cool new APIs to decrease pain in developing OS X apps. I can't wait to get my copy this Friday.
By the contents of your post I can tell you've never purchased OS X. You may have it. But you didn't get it in the box, It's obvious.
Those who have purchased a copy of OS X can see it right away.
...anywaaaaay. I don't need to purchase OS X to know what GCC is. I'm sure you think that GCC is something Apple created. Keep dreaming.
However, contrary to popular belief, you can't just take GCC and charge for it. If that were the case, a lot of people would indeed charge for it. You may deploy it in specific commercial distros, or OSs, and charge for those OSs, like Apple or Novell do, but you can't just sell it in a box, just the developer tools.
Apple can sell Xcode, with all the bells and whistles, and include GCC on it, but I don't think that's the way Mr. Me said. He mentioned GCC, not the whole Xcode lot, and that's why I said you can't do it.
I own two Mac computers, and I do have an OS X box. I don't know how 'them' can see it, that I 'don't have it', but your premise is seriously flawed. Who gives a donkeys ass anyway? PowerMacs are coming and that's all that matters, right?
However, contrary to popular belief, you can't just take GCC and charge for it. If that were the case, a lot of people would indeed charge for it. You may deploy it in specific commercial distros, or OSs, and charge for those OSs, like Apple or Novell do, but you can't just sell it in a box, just the developer tools.
Apple can sell Xcode, with all the bells and whistles, and include GCC on it, but I don't think that's the way Mr. Me said. He mentioned GCC, not the whole Xcode lot, and that's why I said you can't do it.
Ummm, you can too sell it : "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." Straight from The GNU Licence, Terms and conditions, para 1, second sub-para.
Gcc - [The GNU General Public License, Version 2 or later] - 2005-01-19
GNU Compiler Collection. Yes, this shows the above license is what covers Gcc.
All these idealists running around without ever reading the damnable license!
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
How about you read what I said?
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
Mr. Madison, what you have just said, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
There you said it again, "you can't charge" and that is completely wrong. You almost had it right in the beginning of that paragraph, but amount of content actually has nothing to do with whether or not you can charge.
It's really simple if you will just accept the definition and license as published by the Free Software Foundation. I think the horse is getting pretty dead by now. If these last few posts don't seal the deal, no amount of anyone's posts will.
There you said it again, "you can't charge" and that is completely wrong.
I don't see where I said 'you can't charge'. I said it's very hard to justify charging for it when it takes minimal space in an OS X DVD, and when it's not distributed as a separate CD, which could warrant charging for it to cover the costs of the physical transfer Apple -> User.
'Very hard to justify' is not the same as 'you can't charge.'
Quote:
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
Is there a physical act of transferring a copy of GCC (separate from the OS), and/or is there a warranty protection offered exclusively for GCC by Apple?
I'd argue that you're nitpicking and it's quite clear what the GPL licence intentions are.
Quote:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
I don't think that there's a legal distinction between mailing a CD containing software and making it available for download from a server - both incur costs for the person/company making it available.
I can charge you a million dollars for a copy of GCC as long as I either include the source code with the binaries or include a written offer to send you the source code for no more than the cost of shipping and handling.
Of course, you can choose to download GCC from many other places, rather than pay me a million dollars, but that doesn't change the fact that there's nothing in the GPL that prevents my actions.
Comments
Originally posted by cubist
If Apple compiled Tiger with XLC, it would be 10-20% faster at everything right away. Instant speed boost with no negatives at all. No additional costs to end users. All positives, no negatives. XCode can use gcc, be free and still work fine. What, in this picture, is not to like?
FWIW, I'm with cubist on this one. Apple should use the compiler that generates the fastest code possible for OS X. They can distribute GCC and XCode that generates decent speed code and is library compatible with the OS; that's not that hard. Metrowerks still sells CodeWarrior for the Mac and that uses their own compiler and interfaces with the OS libraries.
Again, I like that the OS keeps getting faster, but I'm disappointed that Apple isn't using the fastest tool available in the first place.
- Jasen.
Originally posted by cubist
I disagree completely with you guys. I would have no objection whatsoever if Apple compiled Mac OS X itself with XLC, but then distributed gcc with XCode. I would also like the option of buying XCode Pro for $400 or whatever it is. I think the percentage of Mac users who write code with XCode is fairly low - well below 1% - but it is very nice that Apple includes XCode.
Consider a different example. Sun sells Solaris 9 without a compiler. You don't get any compiler at all. You can download gcc for it and write applications. Sun doesn't use gcc to write Solaris, they use their own compiler. That compiler costs $500 IIRC. You can use gcc, or you can buy their compiler. The choice is yours.
If Apple compiled Tiger with XLC, it would be 10-20% faster at everything right away. Instant speed boost with no negatives at all. No additional costs to end users. All positives, no negatives. XCode can use gcc, be free and still work fine. What, in this picture, is not to like?
Actually cubist that's not that bad of an idea, but I think Apple likes the fact that they can distribute GCC for free, and it is the same compiler they develop, and compile OS X with. I think that point was made better earlier before you posted but I wanted to re-introduce it again. The fact that Apple is hiring developers to work on GCC is an obvious step in the right direction over the direction of the new (optional) compiler with an extra cost to the user.
IMO Apple is thinking wisely. 2¢
Originally posted by Electric Monk
I thought Apple used AIX for their compiler? As do the few big companies able to afford it; Adobe, and Microsoft.
....
AIX is not a compiler. AIX is IBM's version of Unix. You may be thinking about the development system that Apple used to port System 7.1 to the POWER architecture back in the early 1990's. Prior to the Power Mac, Apple used IBM RS/6000 workstations running AIX to port System 7.1 to the PowerPC. Later, our favorite fruit company sold AIX-based servers. However, Apple has not sold AIX since the release of MacOS X Server.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
To the contrary, I understand perfectly.
Currently, Apple makes gcc available with every copy of MacOS X at no extra cost. Apple gives its users the same compiler that it uses for its own development.
What do you mean 'at no extra cost'?
GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What do you mean 'at no extra cost'?
GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.
No extra cost means that Apple does not charge its users over the base OS. XCode includes GCC, but it is much, much more. It is arguably the best development system available anywhere. Even though GCC is free, the rest of XCode does not have to be. Despite the considerable effort that Apple put into XCode, it charges nothing for it over the base OS. Can Microsoft make the same claim? If Apple substituted XLC for GCC, then its development system could not be free. What's so shaky about that?
Friends?
But, now that you mention Xcode and all the rest, the ground becomes firmer, and it's not shaky anymore.
Friends? Sure
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What do you mean 'at no extra cost'?
GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.
Free is not as in cost, FSF makes that VERY clear. It is Free as in I am free to modify it as I see fit.
FSF has no problem if you charge for distributing software using any one of the FSF licenses as long as you make the source code easily available for free. There are no specific restrictions on what and how much you can charge for. The whole no-cost available complete source download thing enforces the low/no-cost aspect without even having to use any restrictions.
So it would be completely legal for Apple to charge for their version of GCC. But then they would be legally bound to make ALL their source changes public at the time of sale, something they don't want to HAVE to do. Apple often sits on it's source mods before committing, to sync with hardware and software release schedules, to avoid tipping anything by compiler feature upgrades.
Originally posted by PB
Actually I am a bit surprised that they did not already in Tiger, but then who knows what IBM would charge them for that?
IBM charges a lot for the use of their compiler's if I remember correcly. Apple basically gives theirs away in the developers kit, so licensing IBM's compiler would probably bleed Apple dry within a few years.
Originally posted by @homenow
IBM charges a lot for the use of their compiler's if I remember correcly. Apple basically gives theirs away in the developers kit, so licensing IBM's compiler would probably bleed Apple dry within a few years.
Remember that Apple also gave away MPW, its venerable development system for MacOS 9 and earlier operating systems.
This is a waste of resources and time.
All the Frameworks would have to be tested and refined with XLC since XLC would have to provide a custom linker and modifications to XLC to support the Objective-C runtime costing Apple more time between releases and personnel power devoted just to reinvent the wheel all for the idea of a small percentage of performance?
I guess people don't realize the amount of resources it takes to do such a task?
GCC 4 and subsequent revisions has had a ton of resources going into revamping it and everyone will soon reap the benefits.
NeXT has 16 years + of time invested in its frameworks using GCC. The compiler expertise at Apple is top-knotch.
People also don't seem to realize that this is the 8 or 9th chip architecture that the OS X technologies have been compiled, tested and deployed on. (this includes all NeXT CPU architectures plus a few that never were released from SUN during the Openstep initiative)
To dump GCC at this point is to put a bullet into the skulls of Apple Engineering collectively.
Just enjoy the improvements to GCC now that Apple has fixed the C/ObjC issues.
App developers want to develop on the tools the OS provider develops on which reassures them they will get the same type of performance experience in their apps that the OS provider gets out of its applications.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What do you mean 'at no extra cost'?
GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.
By the contents of your post I can tell you've never purchased OS X. You may have it. But you didn't get it in the box, It's obvious.
Those who have purchased a copy of OS X can see it right away.
Originally posted by onlooker
By the contents of your post I can tell you've never purchased OS X. You may have it. But you didn't get it in the box, It's obvious.
Those who have purchased a copy of OS X can see it right away.
...anywaaaaay. I don't need to purchase OS X to know what GCC is. I'm sure you think that GCC is something Apple created. Keep dreaming.
However, contrary to popular belief, you can't just take GCC and charge for it. If that were the case, a lot of people would indeed charge for it. You may deploy it in specific commercial distros, or OSs, and charge for those OSs, like Apple or Novell do, but you can't just sell it in a box, just the developer tools.
Apple can sell Xcode, with all the bells and whistles, and include GCC on it, but I don't think that's the way Mr. Me said. He mentioned GCC, not the whole Xcode lot, and that's why I said you can't do it.
I own two Mac computers, and I do have an OS X box. I don't know how 'them' can see it, that I 'don't have it', but your premise is seriously flawed. Who gives a donkeys ass anyway? PowerMacs are coming and that's all that matters, right?
Ciao
Originally posted by Gene Clean
However, contrary to popular belief, you can't just take GCC and charge for it. If that were the case, a lot of people would indeed charge for it. You may deploy it in specific commercial distros, or OSs, and charge for those OSs, like Apple or Novell do, but you can't just sell it in a box, just the developer tools.
Apple can sell Xcode, with all the bells and whistles, and include GCC on it, but I don't think that's the way Mr. Me said. He mentioned GCC, not the whole Xcode lot, and that's why I said you can't do it.
Ummm, you can too sell it : "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." Straight from The GNU Licence, Terms and conditions, para 1, second sub-para.
Gcc - [The GNU General Public License, Version 2 or later] - 2005-01-19
GNU Compiler Collection. Yes, this shows the above license is what covers Gcc.
All these idealists running around without ever reading the damnable license!
Originally posted by Hiro
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
How about you read what I said?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
It is inappropriate to get personal.
XCode.
It was a JOKE! Ever seen the movie Billy Madison?
http://www.great-quotes.com/movie_quotes.htm
Mr. Madison, what you have just said, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Author: Billy Madison
Originally posted by Gene Clean
How about you read what I said?
How bout I just bold what you said?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
There you said it again, "you can't charge" and that is completely wrong. You almost had it right in the beginning of that paragraph, but amount of content actually has nothing to do with whether or not you can charge.
The Free Software Definition: Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Their words, not mine.
It's really simple if you will just accept the definition and license as published by the Free Software Foundation. I think the horse is getting pretty dead by now. If these last few posts don't seal the deal, no amount of anyone's posts will.
Originally posted by Hiro
[B]How bout I just bold what you said?
There you said it again, "you can't charge" and that is completely wrong.
I don't see where I said 'you can't charge'. I said it's very hard to justify charging for it when it takes minimal space in an OS X DVD, and when it's not distributed as a separate CD, which could warrant charging for it to cover the costs of the physical transfer Apple -> User.
'Very hard to justify' is not the same as 'you can't charge.'
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
Is there a physical act of transferring a copy of GCC (separate from the OS), and/or is there a warranty protection offered exclusively for GCC by Apple?
If not, then I don't see what we're arguing here.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
I don't think that there's a legal distinction between mailing a CD containing software and making it available for download from a server - both incur costs for the person/company making it available.
I can charge you a million dollars for a copy of GCC as long as I either include the source code with the binaries or include a written offer to send you the source code for no more than the cost of shipping and handling.
Of course, you can choose to download GCC from many other places, rather than pay me a million dollars, but that doesn't change the fact that there's nothing in the GPL that prevents my actions.