From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT tudor21 DOT net>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: NT and DJGPP
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 1999 17:31:19 +0000
Organization:	Customer of Planet Online
Lines:	29
Message-ID:	<385BC4E7.C55D9E9@tudor21.net>
References:	<199912171554 DOT RAA02040 AT bspu DOT unibel DOT by> <385A7A20 DOT EDF22A95 AT home DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	modem-117.radon.dialup.pol.co.uk
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk 945630450 17961 62.136.42.245 (19 Dec 1999 19:07:30 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	19 Dec 1999 19:07:30 GMT
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
X-NNTP-Posting-Host:	iolanthe.tudor21.net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

"Edward F. Sowell" wrote:
> For all its virtues, not the least of which is its cost, the
> DJGPP port to DOS/Windows has some UNIX baggage. I am always reluctant
> to complain too loudly, as I do use it occasionally and the folks here
> provide a lot of helpful (and free) advice.

I always thought DJGPP was designed to be as Unix-y as possible. To be
quite honest, I've found the Unix way to be much better than Windows in
many respects. bash is much, much better than anything I've used on
Windows. COMMAND.COM is braindead, even on Windows NT.

I think that the forward slash vs. backward slash issue is less of an
issue these days, because people probably see more forward slashes than
back on the web.

> But the community is better served if these issues are better known, and
> when raised by newcomers are addressed without being defensive.

Well, the FAQ's always been helpful for me. Newcomers should read a lot of
that, although I appreciate it can be hard work. I guess I'm being
defensive too ;)

Bye,

-- 
Richard Dawe
richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com ICQ 47595498 http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/

- Raw text -