Then you can talk to me. Every single piece of firmware that goes though my hands these days was written in gcc on windows. Or on gcc on cygwin. Arches I used in the past were gcc on solaris and gcc on Linux (everything prior to that was proprietary). The only reason gcc is being run on windows is becasue IT IS THERE. People would totally run Linux to run gcc; making it available on windows just makes it clickable and useful with visual slick edit. The FSF single handedly destroyed the embedded market with gcc on windows. The reason for that is because the compiler is gratis and it runs on their fav OS to boot. GCC has kept people from running Linux or other gratis OS' by the virtue of windows availability.
I guess you are all surprised now, eh? On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 04:36:51PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > There is a difference between "I have no obligation to answer each and > every message" and "I cannot find a coherent answer to several messages". > > One difference is that the first one is true, and the second one is > false. As you've seen by now, people were looking for something > sinister in a simple delay. > > I know of at least four companies I've worked with/for that *rely* on > gcc and that would switch to Linux/BSD if gcc was not available on > Windows. > > I am surprised by this statement, because in general I don't expect > that very many users would switch to a different operating system just > to use GCC. Nonetheless, I would be interested in talking with them > to see what they say about this.
