From: Kendall Bennett <KendallB AT scitechsoft DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: The Future of DJGPP
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:04:10 -0400
Organization: SciTech Software, Inc.
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <MPG.142daa34c3ae0e5598968a@news.newsguy.com>
References: <967904615 DOT 832712 AT shelley DOT paradise DOT net DOT nz> <8t32rsodgkia3rk2rok5fn57vcgta55nc5 AT 4ax DOT com> <jv82rscrkqsat4n86qua8077i0hpbfbhno AT 4ax DOT com> <gka2rso7b2hk6ejgrtlfo4q1giormmh742 AT 4ax DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-326.newsdawg.com
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.30
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

I am coming in late on this one ;-)

In article <gka2rso7b2hk6ejgrtlfo4q1giormmh742 AT 4ax DOT com>, 
Bullcr_pd_yerrick AT hotmail DOT comRemoveBullcr_p says...

> >relatively simple to use (in comparison)
> 
> How much harder is RHIDE than Watcom's IDE?  RHIDE is no harder than,
> say, Borland's.

RHIDE is cool, but IMHO needs work. I have been hunting for a good cross 
platform editor/IDE for some time and still keep coming up short. I like 
console mode environments, and if I can find the time I plan to enhance 
RHIDE, make a Win32 and OS/2 versions (perhaps even a version that can 
run in a window on the desktop) and make it support both GNU C and 
OpenWatcom out of the box. But of course I have to find the time first, 
and I originally thought of this 12 months ago ;-)

> >moderately good help (easy to find what you want, assuming it's
> >there), excellent code generator, it will also be open source.
> 
> But will it be truly Free?  Some so-called "open source" software
> isn't.  

Oh it will be truly free. Sybase realises this is important because I 
drummed it into their brains when we discussed this early in the piece. 
Whatever licese they choose (which likely will be one dreamed up by 
their laywers), it will pass the guidlines on OpenSource.org and will be 
sanctioned by them.

If I get my way I want to see the core compiler and utilities all under 
a GPL license, with the C/C++ runtime libraries under a Mozilla Public 
License type license (or perhaps BSX/MIT license). Because of Watcom's 
proprietry background, LGPL licensing for the C/C++ runtime libraries 
will cause major headaches for existing users of the product.

> >IMHO, the best setup is both!
> 
> That is, once Open Watcom is bootstrapped into a 100% free product
> that doesn't need the support of Closed USD$500+ Watcom.

The Watcom 11.0 compiler has never been US$500! It has sold for around 
$199 for years (even less in some places). I hope we can get to the free 
Open Watcom 2.0 version quickly (we want to try and share the MingW32 
Win32 SDK header files with that project).

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|   SciTech Software - Building Truly Plug'n'Play Software!     |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kendall Bennett          | Email: KendallB AT scitechsoft DOT com    |
| Director of Engineering  | Phone: (530) 894 8400              |
| SciTech Software, Inc.   | Fax  : (530) 894 9069              |
| 505 Wall Street          | ftp  : ftp.scitechsoft.com         |
| Chico, CA 95928, USA     | www  : http://www.scitechsoft.com  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+