On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 10:23:45PM -0500, 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. I understand that not everyone can follow every thread, but I can also understand that people might get tired of answering the same questions. OTOH, if the questions are too annoying, one can just ignore them... :) > 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. Well, I think this needs to be more than a personal decision. :P > 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 But neither ATT nor MCI is evangelizing a philosophy in which source code is shared openly so that it can be improved--as was done to gcc in the form of egcs. Mike Stone
Attachment:
pgp2a1xieqaOb.pgp
Description: PGP signature