Message-Id:	<200006031025.NAA20249@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
Date:	Sat, 03 Jun 2000 13:24:17 +0200
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<Pine.LNX.4.21.0006030520030.1081-100000@roadrunner.grendel.net>
	(message from Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel on Sat, 3 Jun 2000 05:31:02
	+0600 (LKT))
Subject:	Re: Internal compiler error
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0006030520030 DOT 1081-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 05:31:02 +0600 (LKT)
> From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
> 
> Actually I have had a look at the page but IIRC SET benchmarked it usign
> the 10.x series and in a earlier thread sometime back one poster suggested
> that the 11.x Watcom compiler generates much better code than the 10.x
> compilers...

The difference is probably not radical.

> Also there was some question about what were the switches used for the
> watcom compiler during this test.....

Doesn't SET's page tell that?  I thought it did.

> > Since when is the consumer base a reliable evidence about the quality
> > of the product?  Should I remind you the Windows vs Linux case?
> 
> Sorry if i am missing something, but I thought that the consumer base is
> *the* reliable evidence of the ultimate quality of the product int he
> long run.

Evidently, it isn't, not in our age, anyway.  It looks like consumers
don't mind bying a product that crashes several times a day...

> And please note that for the user the "quality" of a product does not mean
> the technical quality, but how user friendly it is.

That's an interesting notion of quality.  User-friendliness is one of
the factors, but it surely isn't the only one, nor is it the most
important one.

> Windoze is so popular because it is
> much more user friendly than linux and all it's GUI's.....

X windows is not less user-friendly than MS-Windows.

> They expect that the secretary would prefer a technically superior linux
> over windoze and then they expect her to do her word processing in ..VI !

I don't know who expects that from secretaries.  There are true word
processors for Linux (StarOffice, for one).

Btw, I don't know when did you last work in a large corporation, but
where I work, secretaries run to your truly asking to solve problems
with Word.  So much for user-friendliness...

> Just see where GNOME got it's feel...yes from windoze 95.

Look and feel do not have to contradict stability and quality.

> for example I would prefer A "inferiror" product with a GUI based debugger
> than a "awesome?" one with a *!*!! command line based debugger...

Me too, but what's your point?  Both Windows and Linux satisfy this
requirement.

- Raw text -