Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- From: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:14:43 GMT
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 09:01 -0700, james of tucson wrote:
Andrew Poelstra wrote:
The chances of someone installing UNIX tools on their system seems
lower than that of them installing cgywin or just plain Linux. And
both of those chances are still pretty low right now.
Chances? Anybody that wants to is free to run cygwin or linux. That's
the whole point. I don't see where there is any chance involved.
The chances that they know they can, then. Or the chances that
they're willing, or allowed to. (Perhaps they're at school and
are using public computers on which they have no administrative
permissions).
People in general haven't figured out that all the world ain't
a Wintel.
--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net>
For email, use 'apoelstra' at the above site.
"You're only smart on the outside." -anon.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- From: james of tucson
- Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- References:
- Re: assembly in future C standard
- From: jacob navia
- Re: assembly in future C standard
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- From: Andrew Poelstra
- Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- From: james of tucson
- Re: assembly in future C standard
- Prev by Date: Re: function without an address?
- Next by Date: Re: I have a problem in my study
- Previous by thread: Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- Next by thread: Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|