Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:48:23 +0100 To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Kernel Message-ID: <19990315164823.J971@cerebro.laendle> Mail-Followup-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com References: <19990314052249 DOT T21035 AT cerebro DOT laendle> <19990315020634 DOT I19035 AT cerebro DOT laendle> <36EC884F DOT 865A55F1 AT netplus DOT net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <36EC884F.865A55F1@netplus.net>; from Steve Bergman on Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 10:10:55PM -0600 X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.2.3 (root AT cerebro) (gcc driver version pgcc-2.93.09 19990221 (gcc2 ss-980929 experimental) executing gcc version 2.7.2.3) From: Marc Lehmann Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: pgcc AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 10:10:55PM -0600, Steve Bergman wrote: > > vendors, and threaten said company. How did they do it? By avoiding the > fragmentation and conflict inherent in the commercial Unix world. What could > send them down in flames? Fragmentation and conflict. this is not neccessarily going to stay. OK, the bsd split of the week phenomenon will probably stay forever, but the gcc/egcs/pgcc split will not. pgcc is (very slowly ;) becoming obsolete since egcs is implementing the pgcc optimizations over time. I'm also sure that egcs will not stay seperate from gcc for very long (*sic*). > Thanks for all the work that the pgcc, egcs, and other free/open-source software > people have contributed. you severly forgot to mention linux. Really! -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg AT goof DOT com |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |