Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- From: james of tucson <jmcgill@[go_ahead_and_spam_me].arizona.edu>
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:23:15 -0700
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Andrew Poelstra said:
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 09:01 -0700, james of tucson wrote:
Andrew Poelstra wrote:The chances that they know they can, then. Or the chances that
The chances of someone installing UNIX tools on their system seemsChances? Anybody that wants to is free to run cygwin or linux. That's
lower than that of them installing cgywin or just plain Linux. And
both of those chances are still pretty low right now.
the whole point. I don't see where there is any chance involved.
they're willing, or allowed to. (Perhaps they're at school and
are using public computers on which they have no administrative
permissions).
Or perhaps they're working in a company which likes to keep careful control
over what software is installed on its computers, for legal and safety
reasons. Almost all the companies I've worked for in the UK are like this.
People in general haven't figured out that all the world ain't
a Wintel.
That too. Try running cygwin on a 4341. :-)
Well, in that case, *definitely* don't deliver something to them that
requires Cygwin.
I still don't see what the problem is.
.
- 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 [OT]
- From: Andrew Poelstra
- Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: assembly in future C standard
- Prev by Date: Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- Next by Date: Cannot return values of char variable
- Previous by thread: Re: assembly in future C standard [OT]
- Next by thread: Re: assembly in future C standard
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
