From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 20 00:00:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA27629 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:00:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from vinyl.quickweb.com (vinyl.quickweb.com [206.222.77.8]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA27620 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:00:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mark@localhost) by vinyl.quickweb.com (8.7.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA19337; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 03:00:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 03:00:08 -0500 (EST) From: Mark Mayo To: Nate Williams cc: Terry Lambert , hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Sun Workshop compiler vs. GCC? In-Reply-To: <199702200150.SAA25151@rocky.mt.sri.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Nate Williams wrote: > [ Again ] > > Terry, watch me, and repeat this on your keyboard. > > 'I was wrong, you are correct.' > > [ You look more foolish all the time ] But I don't think he was wrong... if you've ever had to program the win32 API using the 'thunking' crap, I think you'd realize that what Terry said was exactly correct. As an unfortunate developer that's had to write one project too many for win95 (using 16-bit DLL's) I now know the whole 16-bit subsystem of winblows95 inside out. Of course, there are several points of view when looking at Terry's comments (which he excels at :-) but if you read it carefully you'll see his comments are perfectly correct - although somewhat off topic.. Win95 obviously can run 16-bit drivers, but it has to go through significant effort to do so (altought not as much as WOW on WinNT). -Mark P.S. I'm an 'Enterprise' MSN developer. > > > I am typing this from a telnet running from a Windows95 box. I am an > > MSDN level II developer. > > So am I. It's irrelevant, as well as all of your other 'claims to > fame'. We're talking about what Win95 upgrades do, not what kind of > developer you are. You stated that Win95 doesn't use DOS devices when > an upgrade occurs, and you're wrong. Plain wrong. You can argue about > how you are misinformed, misaligned, misunderstood, but in fact you are > plain mistaken. Wrong. > > > I can not speak for your experiences, except to say that they are > > quite bizarre, and not in line with my own. Given that I had access > > to the Windows95 Alpha and have been installing the thing over and > > over (I did work on FS drivers -- duh) since around December of 1994, > > And so have I. *SO* WHAT!!!!! It's irrelevant. > > > I *probably* have installed it more than you have. And I'm telling > > you that your experiences are not my experiences, and I can not > > explain how you arrived at yours. > > I don't have to explain it, only I can say with absolute and completey > knowledge that you're wrong. > > C'mon, I *really* want to see you admit you're wrong instead of changing > the subject to something like how many times you've installed it and > never seen it happen, or what you read, or something else. You're > simply *wrong* > > > Nate >