From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:03:39 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 110 ************************************************** Monday 28 April 2003 Number 110 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: GCC 3.22 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) : Henry Sobotka 2 Re: InnoTek GCC for OS/2! : Kris Steenhaut 3 Re: OT: Kris rant : Kris Steenhaut 4 Re: Re: GCC 3.22 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) : Dave and Natalie" 5 Re: GCC 3.22 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) : Dave and Natalie" 6 Re: Newbie : Stefan Neis 7 Re: GCC 3.22 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) : Alexander Newman 8 Re: Re: GCC 3.22 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) : Alexander Newman 9 Re: GCC 3.2 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) : Dave and Natalie" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:01:31 -0400 From: Henry Sobotka Subject: Re: GCC 3.22 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) Dave and Natalie wrote: > > I wonder what GCC moving away from EMX will mean to us? Mike Kapley said in a Mozilla > bug that they are waiting for GCC 3.22 which won't have any EMX dependecies. Assuming you mean 3.2.2, I don't see how they're going to come up with new C/C++ libraries virtually overnight. I suppose they could use the toolkit C lib, but it's a dead end whereas EMX is there to build on. Do you have the bug number, Dave? h~ **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:39:15 +0200 From: Kris Steenhaut Subject: Re: InnoTek GCC for OS/2! Bart van Leeuwen schreef: >Kris, > >Why is it that you are trying to create a negative atmosphere around this >rather nice achievement ? > Which achievement? Do you mean M$'s takeover of Connectix? The guys in there are fully entitled to take the money coming from M$, no question about that. Still I don't like it. >Are you programming with gcc 3.2.1 ?? did you run into trouble ?? did you >ask the innotek people for help ?? > >I did all three off them and they were to great help to me.. can't imagine >if you would ask for they wouldn't help you. > >you sound like a dissatisfied customer, but I think you don't even use the >product ? > You should be aware you thinking isn't as good as you think it is. If you are talking about VPC (are you, and why then are you), I've paid for the initial beta release, I paid for the later upgrade, I've paid for my flash/2 copies, I even paid 2 copies Opera/2. I everybody would pay as much and as much native OS/2 software as I do, IBM even wouldn't dare to speak about the year 2006 ending. And I wonder, as it is perfectly clear the VPC for OS/2 is about history now, why on Earth everybody is trying to claim the opposite? And yes, I am dissatisfied, for a product for which I have paid rather much of money not so long ago has reached already his end of life. So, indeed, I don't trust anything anymore coming from there. Actually, this is far of topic, and I wonder why someone came here up with rather old messages of me. > furthermore I don't think this list is intended for OS/2 >advocay/politics. > >but with unixos2 related question you can always popup here ! > >With Regards >Bart van Leeuwen > > >. > > > -- Groeten uit Gent, Kris **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 01:55:56 +0200 From: Kris Steenhaut Subject: Re: OT: Kris rant Steve Wendt schreef: >On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Kris Steenhaut wrote: > > > >>Or to put it blunt: whenever M$ will say NO, it will be NO. Dunno >>whether M$ told NO to GoldenCode systems, but it looks suspicious into >>that way. >> >> > >What does Microsoft have to do with GoldenCode? > > > > Question is why Innotek dumped GoldenCode: http://www.goldencode.com/company/corp/j2sefaq.html > * A.* No, these projects are different and separate. At the time of > the press release you saw (August 14, 2002), Golden Code Development > had an agreement in principle with InnoTek Systemberatung GmbH to > cooperatively develop a J2SE 1.4.1, and for InnoTek to market this > solution in certain markets. Due to differences in technical, > licensing, and business approaches, this agreement in principle was > later dissolved. Remember, until begin this year nobody, absolutely nobody new about the M$/Connectix agreement, whereas the were dealing already in August 2002. Call me paranoiac, but to me this look pretty much like M$ standard procedure. :-) Or to put it blunt, GoldenCode has been scooped. [remark the "differences ...., licensing, and business approaches"]. -- Groeten uit Gent, Kris **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:26:06 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: Re: GCC 3.22 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:26:08 +1000, Alexander Newman wrote: > >But I'm still curious as to two apparently separate "unixos2" development >streams - or are they? No, one is a Mozilla development stream Dave **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:40:18 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: GCC 3.22 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:01:31 -0400, Henry Sobotka wrote: >Dave and Natalie wrote: >> >> I wonder what GCC moving away from EMX will mean to us? Mike Kapley said in a Mozilla >> bug that they are waiting for GCC 3.22 which won't have any EMX dependecies. > >Assuming you mean 3.2.2, I don't see how they're going to come up with >new C/C++ libraries virtually overnight. I suppose they could use the >toolkit C lib, but it's a dead end whereas EMX is there to build on. Do >you have the bug number, Dave? Actually Mike just refers to GCC 3.2, I assumed GCC3.2.2. Anyways the bug is #202513 and the problem is figureing out which networking (EMX or OS/2 select()) code Mozilla is using (This is the bug about the GCC build just vanishing when lots of tabs or images) Dave **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:44:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: Newbie On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, John Poltorak wrote: > Can you give me an example of a program which will not accept c:\tmp when > you are doing some processing on a different partition? There are two possibilities: Either a given program is using a hard-coded /tmp (ignoring %TMP% completely), then it will fail if /tmp is not on the current partition. Or it is using %TMP%, then it doesn't have problems with whatever_drive:\whatever_path\tmp either... Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:21:33 +1000 From: Alexander Newman Subject: Re: GCC 3.22 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) > Dave and Natalie wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:56:32 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > >Is there nothing more interesting to talk about than Kris' paranoia? > > I wonder what GCC moving away from EMX will mean to us? Mike Kapley > said in a Mozilla bug that they are waiting for GCC 3.22 which won't > have any EMX dependecies. What is the problem with having EMX dependencies? And is this stream independant of unixos2, and if it is, what is the potential for compatibility problems down the track (err...these questions are probably more appropraite to the unixos2 list - please don't flame me for being off-topic ;). > Anyways it's good that AZ is getting paid for porting GCC > Dave Cheers, Alex. **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:26:08 +1000 From: Alexander Newman Subject: Re: Re: GCC 3.22 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) > Alexander Newman wrote: > > > Dave and Natalie wrote: > > > > On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:56:32 +0100, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > >Is there nothing more interesting to talk about than Kris' > paranoia? > > > > I wonder what GCC moving away from EMX will mean to us? Mike Kapley > > said in a Mozilla bug that they are waiting for GCC 3.22 which > won't > > have any EMX dependecies. > > What is the problem with having EMX dependencies? And is this stream > independant > of unixos2, and if it is, what is the potential for compatibility > problems down > the track (err...these questions are probably more appropraite to the > unixos2 > list - please don't flame me for being off-topic ;). Oops, for some reason I thought this was the eCS group, doh! My apologies. But I'm still curious as to two apparently separate "unixos2" development streams - or are they? Cheers, Alex. **= Email 9 ==========================** Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:23:32 -0800 From: "Dave and Natalie" Subject: Re: GCC 3.2 (was Re: OT: Kris rant) On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:40:18 -0800, Dave and Natalie wrote: > http://www.innotek.de/products/gccos2/gccos2general_e.html Dave