From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <775b8d190604261102k1e95d411x39c954aea86035f4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 04:02:26 +1000 From: "Bruce Ellis" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] impressive In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060426005301.GF27116@submarine> <57a21f730604251915y2344526ey629c2cb0de0055fb@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 467e65c4-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 which one do you think is growing faster - autoconf or gcc? or is there some symbiosis? have a glass of wine anyway. brucee On 4/27/06, Micah Stetson wrote: > > http://udrepper.livejournal.com/7326.html: > > The only OSes supported in the [glibc] tree are Linux and to some > > extend Hurd. > > ... > > For my new projects the razor is even sharper. Only Linux is suppor= ted... > > The part I find funny is that he calls everybody who doesn't like > autoconf a "winer" (am I a winner, a whiner, or a wiener? there's a > critical letter missing here) because it makes portability "quite > easy" and then proceeds to rant about how maintaining portable code is > too heavy a load for his projects to bear. So it's too hard, but only > winners think he's doing it wrong? > > Micah >