From:	"Andrew Jones" <luminous-is AT home DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<7r4q4.45719$45 DOT 2400743 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <tqnias8k4o0486d553ivbr63ascnnm5arm AT 4ax DOT com> <n8wq4.48715$45 DOT 2630926 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <88emn6$ft6$1 AT gateway DOT qnx DOT com> <YrYq4.53294$45 DOT 2819027 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com> <88huno$dnn$1 AT gateway DOT qnx DOT com>
Subject:	Re: <Damian Y> Re: It's back, but the ...
Lines:	42
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Message-ID:	<Ff8r4.55516$45.2956311@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:27:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host:	24.42.120.18
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT home DOT net
X-Trace:	news2.rdc1.on.home.com 950866021 24.42.120.18 (Fri, 18 Feb 2000 01:27:01 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Fri, 18 Feb 2000 01:27:01 PST
Organization:	@Home Network Canada
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> Please spare me the personnal insults,  if you have arguments to make
> against the GPL speak up, nobody is forcing you to agree or use it.
> But you'll be corrected if you say fallacies and again a better forum
> for this is gnu.misc.discuss.

I apologise if that's how you interpreted it, that's not what I meant.  I tend
to stay away from personal insults as it tends to get you (meaning people in
general, not you specifically) labeled as a troll.  But understand this... I
SAID NO FALLACIES.  Reread the relevent section.  I stated (with appropriate
disclaimers) what I *thought* it was.  I did not say that was *what* it was.

> "between Damian, myself ...", Please !  You posted something on usenet
> a public forum.  This is Usenet.

I understand that.  It wasn't meant as an exclusion to the people who stand
opposite my point of view.  I meant that it was intended for Damian to read and
reply to, others doing the same is fine and dandy.  But it was *aimed* at
Damian to hopefully change his opinion of Watcom.

> Maybe the "x86 centric" was a bit harsh.  I wanted to point out the
> versatility of the compiler and it can procudes effective code for, for
example
> SPARC machines.  For a long time gcc did not make wave much in the x86 world
> because there was not much Un*x on x86.  People were using Sun, HP, IBM/AIX
> etc ... This were gcc was very strong.  Of course things change with
> the *BSD (on x86) and Linux etc ...  Now gcc-2.95.x is not something
> you can wave out if you are looking for a good compiler.

Never have waved it out.  I like DJGPP, I like GCC, I like the whole FSF
ideology.  But I like Watcom, and am irritated when people who appear to be
misinformed or unreasonably biased state things that are, IMHO, incorrect.

> Please drop the personnal attitude, I'm not attacking you
> *as* a person, you may be a fine lad.

I am sorry, Alain, if that is the attitude you get.  It is not intended.  But
I'm not a lad anymore (unless you're 50 years or older and call everyone a lad
=)

Andrew Jones.

- Raw text -