If it isn't true, can someone send mail to Tiemann and tell him the
facts. Sounds like we're getting bad press.
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 05:22:52 -0700
From: Michael Tiemann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [comp.sys.sgi.apps] gcc part II
Is this not fixed in 6.2? I upgraded my machine at home yesterday, and
it looked suspiciously like SGI was providing headers and libraries as
part of the std 6.2 release.
From: email@example.com (Jon Rust)
Subject: gcc part II
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 22:25:34 -0700
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.2.0b4
Before I fly off the handle, I wanna make sure this is true.
You can't build ***anything*** unless you fork over a huge wad of cash to
SGI for their compiler and dev enviro?
**If** this is true, it's horseshit. No wonder SGI is so far down the food
chain in the land of UNIX. Buying SGI could be one of the biggest mistakes
I've made since openning my business over 15 months ago. I wonder if my 30
days are up. Maybe I can ship it back. I only wish I'd bought [insert any
other UNIX platform here].
If it's not true, could someone plz point me in the right direction to get
gcc working so I can compile BIND, RADIUS, wuftpd, etc...
pissed off with no build capability,
Internet Access of Ventura County
firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.vc.net 805.383.3500
I know that gcc is not yet 6.2-friendly, but that's much more easily
fixed than the library/header problem.
------- End of Forwarded Message