Re: Ada & .Net (Rotor)

[Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <un0wacgxh.fsf@wanadoo.fr>, Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> 
> "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:
> 
>> "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
>> news:ur8lnd5o4.fsf@wanadoo.fr...
>> > work with. Of course it is always a bit tricky to build Open Source
>> softwares
>> > on this platform (it is quite easier to use the Microsoft Compiler and
>> > environment), but with a bit of effort it is possible to build a lot of
>> the
>> > nice tools we have on Unix (thanks to Cygwin).
>> >
>> In what way is it tricky to build Open Source software on Windows? Can you
>> not build Open Source software using a Microsoft compiler? Maybe you can't
>> give away their part of the software but it would seem that anything you
>> build is yours.
> 
> I don't understand this part.
> 
>> Or do you mean that much Open Source software is developed for various
>> flavors of Unix and hence doesn't always translate well to Windows?
> 
> Ok, I meant that.

In that regard, Windows should be no harder than OS/400.

Open Source software is not different from normal software.
Making useful programs portable between operating systems
requires careful effort from the beginning.  If there
is no effort at portability put into some individual piece
of Open Source software, that is a problem that cannot be
blamed on Microsoft.