Re: different GNUstep questions and comments

[Patrick Middleton]

On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, at 10:16  pm, Fred Kiefer wrote:

> Patrick Middleton wrote:
> > [Still, it's nice to be using something newer than a toolchain based 
> > on Cygwin, circa gcc-2.7.2.1 ]
>
> Is it possible that you are mistaken here? The Cygwin I am using has a 
> GCC 3.3 and 3.4 is also available as an option. I don't want to 
> convince you to use Cygwin it is just that free software programmers 
> tent to get rather impolite when their software gets blamed for 
> problems that aren't there. There is a lot to complain about in Cygwin, 
> just check a few of my recent post on the GNUstep mailing list, but an 
> outdated tools chain isnt one of them.
>
> Please remember that false claims always reflect back on the rest of 
> your posting.

?

WebObjects 4.0/Windows was based on what was a recent Cygwin at the 
time -- that was in late 1996.

NeXT/Apple appeared to do little work, if any, updating the Cygwin/gcc 
elements distributed with WebObjects on Windows, and that's why the 
WebObjects 4.5.1 systems I was working on last week and will be working 
on again next week have are based on a Cygwin and gcc from sometime 
around 1997.

-- Patrick