> This is a bad assumption, since just because someone's running Windows does
> not mean they're willing to pay Micro$oft for an MSVC license, nor does
> everyone want to allocate the hard drive space for all of MSVC just so
> we can
> compile a few binaries for Windows. In my experience, cygwin is smaller,
> more UNIX-user friendly, compatible with bash and sh, and gives Windows
> a useful/featureful shell (finally!). I absolutely prefer cygwin/gcc
> over MSVC.
Actually, Jason makes an EXCELLENT point Pier that you should listen to.
What you have been proposing with compiling the Windows based C code on
MSVC is that people would have to go and purchase M$ products in order to
do that. In fact, that is essentially what you are having to do as well.
I'm STRONGLY -1 on that for obvious reasons.
I would MUCH rather require developers to install cygwin and use auto*
tools to build the system than to go purchase MSVC and install that.
thanks,
-jon
--
Scarab -
Java Servlet Based - Open Source
Bug/Issue Tracking System
<http://scarab.tigris.org/>
