[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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.
I have to get MSVC anyhow since Apache doesn't build on cygwin.... So
what?
Pier
--
Pier Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.betaversion.org/~pier>
