Slashdot Mirror

You bring up a good point. For years I have been looking for an open source compiler thats about the same quality as GCC, but is anything but GCC. I'm not too picky about the politics, as long as there a different set of politics from the GCC politics. I had great hope for Open Watcom, but the license was bad enough for debian to consider it non free, and they are not actively trying to be an alternative to GCC. Its quite a shame, but I really don't blame them. Technically Watcom is about ready for primetime on linux,they just need to get enough people to periodically try to compile there pet open source linux program with it and send a "I cant get this to work" mail to the list, but no one seems to care. PCC, on the other hand has a much larger set of people that have a reason to like PCC for reasons other than its not gcc./p>

Compilers for Windows: Microsoft's, Borland's, icc, gcc-mingw


For Windows there are also

Digital Mars - used to be Symantec C++

LCC

Open Watcom

I think there are more for Linux also, like Visual Age
etc.

Well if it were me I'd include instructions for compiling the virus with Open Watcom.

Remember, While Carmack and Romero used DJGPP to cross compile Doom and quake from their Next boxes, the shipped binaries were compiled in watcom.

2) No Windows installer
The windows port is released seperatly by mingw and cygnus folks. But if you want lonks all I can offer you is a link to a REAL(tm) compiler, Open Watcom.
And for all you linux zealots out their reading slashdot with Internet Explorer, their working on the linux version. I believe they even hired some indians to help with the port. Thats sure to start a flame war on slashdot, offshore outsourcing to do open source programming.

The code often uses K&R function declarations, but then does member-by-member copying of structs just using the assignment operator. Lots of small stupid stuff like that. Sounds like a boring manual, long, but quite achievable task. Granted not worth it for shits and giggles, but if you want to port to Linux, or any OS, your going to need to switch away from Visual Studio anyway, and this is the least of the bottlenects. Speaking of Visual Studio, assuming the build system uses nmake, and you dotn want to rewrite makes files to work with gmake or pmake, The compiler OpenWatcom has wrappers for nmake, cl.exe and link.exe that call the watcom build chain. You would have to make your own version of the link and cl wrapper that redirected to gcc of course, but its a step in the right direction.

*Resumes waiting for Firebird 0.8 and a good distro with kernel 2.6.x*
Ok I can understand wanting a firebird binary thats been blessed, but really man, if you want 2.6.x download it, make menuconfig(or your favorite interface), bzimage, modules, modules-install, then copy your kernel and update lilo. Of course your probally running that new fangled grub. Back in my day we had boot loaders that knew their place and didn't read ext2 file systems. You had to reload your MBR every time you messed around with your kernel. And we liked it that way!!

Seriously though, do people not compile kernels anymore? I mean I haven't in a while, but thats because my only linux box currently is used for running DiabloII for my brother and for me to attempt to cross compile Open Watcom. I compile kernels on my BSD machine regurally as i track 5.x-RELEASE. I've compiled a 2.4 kernel on SuSE a few months ago on a box at work. Is their some issue with breaking stuff (besides the system not booting) that's been happening due to magic autoconfig scripts in distros that would cause someone who wants 2.6 to wait for their distro to bless it?

When a website uses obfuscated JavaScript to do something that can easily be done with straight HTML, my tinfoil hat starts glowing.

There are different levels of trust.
The main problem with JavaScript is that it is used by all sorts of people/sites for all sorts of nefarious purposes.
I know that this is guilt-by-association, but I am very paranoid in some areas, and this is one of them.
This is why I am downloading the source code instead of their convenient executables, so that I can look through it to see if there are any obvious things like a "phone home" module, etc.
(Hopefully, their source will compile with gcc.)
Had they not used this JavaScript nonsense on their website, I may have trusted them enough to just download and install the binary.
However, the very act of using JavaScript, where it is not necessary, makes me suspicious.
That's just the kind of guy I am.

Also, what I meant by asking about mirrors was whether anyone knew about existing mirrors, not would somebody make a mirror for me.
(I wouldn't download from such a mirror anyway (my paranoia again).)
I can see that the way I asked the question could cause it to be interpreted the way that you did, but that was not what I meant.
It turns out that someone did point me to an existing mirror (or maybe that's where the JavaScript takes you; I don't know), which was what I wanted, and for which I am grateful.

Try ftp://ftp.openwatcom.com/