Re: slink is gone, goals for potato?
"Phillip R. Jaenke" wrote:
> I really *really* don't have time to follow all the threads, so you'll
> have to forgive me missing that. Like I said, the last I heard of it was
> licensing issues. And quite frankly, personally, I don't want to see egcs
> as the requirement till egcs gets a lot better. IMHO, quite frankly, egcs
> has a LOT of room for improvement on *every* architecture.
Where does egcs lack in comparison to gcc? Egcs frequently pulls in all
the new gcc development and was based off gcc, so I would be surprised
to find it to be worse than gcc. Most tests haven't ranked significatly
better than gcc, except in C++ development, but it would be nice to
standardize on egcs than mixing the two.
> Anyways, it's not surprising to me. It's not logical to promote someone
> else's product over your own. You won't hear an AT&T employee telling you
> to go with MCI. ;P
So if libc wouldn't run without patches on the Hurd, but would on Linux,
you would feel the same actions were justified? The copyright on EGCS
is completely owned by the FSF. The only reason for the problem is
petty personality differences like those that produced Emacs and Xemacs.
--
David Starner - OSU student - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
If you want a real optimist, look up Ray Bradbury. Guy's nuts.
He actually likes people. -David Brin
Reply to: