Since the.NET framework basically wraps around Windows API calls, emulating Win32 is not necessary to run.NET. That's kind of the whole point of the VM model which the CLR clearly represents.
You can do a lot with the.NET API. However, there are certain times P/Invokeing Win32 API calls are neccessary. For example I have to use
these API calls to be able to create a dropdown list of only non-removeable drives. Another example is performing certain functions with
JetSQL (MS Access) databases.
This is why I laugh at the Libertarian party guys who think everything'd be peachy if we just elect their "small government" candidates to office in our government. Who do they think the government works for? 'Cause it ain't the people! Virtually every 'consumer protection' act that gets passed actually serves only to insulate large, powerful businesses (backers of the bill, natch) from competition. It's been that way for at least two hundred years. (Before then, they didn't bother to pretend.)
You have a big logic flaw their. If we elected libertarians, they would stop passing and try to repeal "consumer protection" acts. Therefore leading to less protection of big business. I'm not saying that pure libertarianism is the answer, just your particular argument is flawed.
Also, did you ever think that liberterianism is a reactionary view. Maybe when we get a bit closer to libertarianism, the same people will clamor for a shift to slightly bigger government.
A treatment means that you can prolong it. A cure for the price of two years' treatment means you can keep your competitor from selling two decades of treatment.
Nobody cares if their competitor looses two year worth of profits unless it benefits them. If I sell a million dollars worth of insulin a year and you sell a billion, I will market this cure if it has the potential to make me 1.1 million a year. I don't give a crap about you loosing a billion dollars a year, unless I think that will allow me to buy you out. Maybe I could use this as a bargaining tool, I'll license you the drug if you license me the cancer drug. However, no one cares about "hurting" the competition unless its in their best interest.
After all, until Firefox implements some kind of MSHTML.DLL replacement scheme (would this be so difficult, really?), it is not possible to completely remove Internet Explorer from a standard Windows system (WinXP Lite etc. notwithstanding) and have it still function the same way.
Someone should port the Wine MSHTML.DLL back to Windows.. and have it use Gecko, in order that we completely reduce the requirement of Windows on the obvious things.
Shouldn't MS be the one fixing the problems in MS software? I can see why there aren't many people volunteering to solve what is not their problem in the first place.
It is their obligation. However, some people might want to solve Microsoft problems because Microsoft won't and it benefits them.
Google is competing with MS Office? Don't you actually have to have a product on the market to be considered a competitor?
At this point, all the pies Google plans to have their thumbs in are nothing more than vaporware.
There are certain documents that I store in google docs and spreadsheets. I'd hardly call their apps vaporware.
Microsoft has a product. Google's online office tools perform a similar function. Its very possible people can say that Google's suite is "good enough" for some people not to buy Office. On top of that, if someone uses Google's office suite because its free and then decides they need more functionality, they would be more likely to consider Open Office if they already find free office suites as acceptable.
Look at the IE versus Netscape competition of the browser wars. Netscape and Microsoft were both giving away browsers for free. They both wanted their browser to dominate so they could sell their other products, that were delivered to the users through browsers.
I'm not sure what field you're in, but mine is small (at most 10,000 people, but actually much less.) Giving away code -- it carries with it responsibility, in the sense that if you do give away code people think you are saying "I am so cool that what I have done is better than whatever you haven't released." Sort of like, I don't know, the difference between keeping a diary and publishing a diary on livejournal. It generates problems. I guess it really depends on the nature of the code. My pet open source project (see sig) has gotten hardly any feedback. I have a trickle of downloads, usually 2-8 a day, one anonymous bug report and some feedback from the author of UltraDefrag after I contributed documentation to his project.
So the problem I've had with open sourcing my code is that no one cares. This is probably partially due to the fact that no one wants a SQL front end to MS Access databases and there are better frontends to SQLite. I hardly use PlaneDisaster.NET myself anymore because thankfully I don't have to deal with applications that store data in an MS Access Database at the moment.
And also thank you for being an educated bus driver. Where I'm from in the NYC Metro area... bus drivers routinely cut off other motorists and generally cause a big distraction on the road. What's worse... because of the nature of the NYC Metro area busses are frequently empty half the time depending on which side of rush hour it is. If they had put a little bit of thought into it, I may even be able to use public transportation to effectively get around the area.
I don't think a degree makes you a safer bus driver. I'm from Queens (part of the NYC metro area) and I know enough to respect buses when I drive. I've only seen 2 bus accidents in my life and had less than 5 drivers that had the "I was in an accident" badge.
In regards to buses being empty half the time, the buss has to take the off peak route to get back to the on peak route of the moment. How do you propose that gets fixed? Also I don't have a problem getting around the area by bus. You have to wait around for a while for most buses after 10 pm, but very few places have buses that run that late.
I went to your homepage. I hope you don't have aspirations of making a living as a professional photographer unless you plan on getting a job with Getty, or photographing weddings. Stock is destroying your industry. Although, you can make easy side money with a stock agency.
I'm sorry, I know a professional photographer pushing 50 in NYC. He says no ones making money any more.
...aren't going to find anything here to change their minds.
When you hear people like Linus talk about the license (the good ol' GPL v2, that is), it sounds very reasonable - I gave you code, so you have to give back what you went on to accomplish with it. Except that it's not enough to post Linus (or whoever the original programmer was) a CD with your latest and greatest; you have to provide convenient source code access to anyone who ever received your software, for every version that you ever distributed, for years. If you have a serious customer base, even if those "customers" are getting your stuff for free, this requirement is neither easy nor cheap. Better take it seriously though, because the FSF has shown it intends to come down hard on those who fall short.
And we're not even talking about GPL v3 here.
If you read the gpl (v2) you would realize its not that hard:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Also, just make the source available via a html page with google ads. If enough people download it, you'll make money.
When you are the rare person on/. with a wife & 2 small children, this is not *always* possible. I rent a crappy apartment, we have 1 car, haven't eaten out since at least February, no cell phone, only borrowed (read neighbour's unsecured) wifi, you name it & we are doing it. I'm the kinda guy that pokes fun at tree-huggers, but I'm probably greener than a lot of them - electricity/gas/whatever costs money!
I currently make just under 30 in DFW, if not for side work, we wouldn't make it. Your advice would be well taken by many here, I am sure, just remember not everyone *can* live under their means if their means are small and their needs are great (I could live very comfortably as a bachelor on 30,000 but not with kids). Yes, a wife and kids were my choice, but I shouldn't have to chose between a family and the ability to have a decent job.
What the hell are you doing for a living making so little money? I've been there, dropped out of college and worked at burger king for a bit. Did security for a bit and my salaray at my first tech job was under 30k.
Your in a rare situation though. All the people I know making under 30k at your age lack a proper command of the English language. Unless DFW (Dallas Fort Worth?) is really that depressed, I don't see you not being able to eventually find better employment than what you have now. Regardless, your kids will reach school age and your wife will be able to work part time.
However, I think there is a flaw in this thinking. Within this paradigm, the only time that the employee has the capability to affect their working conditions is at the bargaining table at the time of hiring. But the power relationship between the 2 parties at the bargaining table is not equal. It hurts the potential employee more to walk out than it hurts the employer to look for a replacement. The same relationship applies if conditions become abusive during employment. It hurts the employee more to be out of a job than it hurts the employer to be temporarily short-staffed. As long as the balance of power is heavily in favor of the employer, they are in a position to make excessive demands.
Thats really the fault of the employees. You can live below your means with most jobs if you try hard enough, especially if your single. You will have to make sacrifices. You will have to rent, live in a not nice neighborhood, and you will have to cook your own meals. If you can live with your parents you have a leg up.
The hardest part of living below your means is having the willpower not to spend all your money. I'm doing it with student loans, a car payment, a 43.6 mile each way commute, and a girlfriend. I make tough choices. Have part of your direct deposit sent to a savings account that you don't have ATM access too. Through that money into an investment that you will think twice about selling.
Basically, once you move a big chunk of your money into savings each month, you can live "paycheck to paycheck" with the rest. So your still a wage slave at the start of things, but as your wealth grows, you become more empowered to "walk away."
The whole paying money to a dead author thing is even weirder.
dead authors may have live heirs who need the money
it would be nice to think that one's work could benefit one's children for some time
OTOH, current corporate perversions attempting to lock revenue streams in perpetuity are abominations
OTTH, Admiral Heinlein, I salute you sir!
Ok here's an idea. How about we limit copyright to a period of lets say 20 years, and if authors want to take care of there kids they have to invest a portion of their income during that 20 years. I work for the man, and thats how I plan on taking care of my kids. Of course I specifically don't want to help them too much after college. I believe in making them go out on there own, and charging rent that is cheaper than market value but not insignificant if they wish to remain living with me.
Other than real property, possessions only get taxed at time of purchase.
If the tax man gets his way imaginary property will get taxed too.
See: 2nd Life, Sale of WOW characters/items/gold, automotive taxes(DMV "fees"), etc.
Other than land, and registered automobiles, you generally do not need to pay the government anything for what you already own. Yes you can reduce the cost of shelter greatly if you take some extreme measures. However, living off the grid is generally an extreme measure.
Yes there are other expenses and considerations. However, its been done before. If you own a van and don't park it in the same spot all the time, you should be able to get away with sleeping in it.
Sun gets bad press for developing free software...
Yes, it has a free license, but are they actually "developing free software?" The "Bazaar" includes more than just the assigning the GPL.
The Cathedral used as the original case study was RMS's own EMACS. Its really not about control or lack thereof, the problem is how happy the users and "outside contributors" agree with those that control the "master fork." Of course this is where Git's greatness truely comes in.
And beyond that, here in the States, the gub'ment is the source of the evil money cycle. If you have possessions, they're going to be taxed. You'll require some form of employment to cover those taxes. Wages from your employment get taxed too. Almost no one will employ you (legally) without you having an address... and "cardboard box under the I-75 overpass" won't cut it. So rent a room, which requires more money. The gub'ment is structured with a fundamental bias against those who try to play outside the system. And if you buck the system too hard, you can earn a six-month "get away from it all" stay at the gray-bar hotel.
Other than real property, possessions only get taxed at time of purchase. If you really wanted to, you could declare your residency at your parents house, or a friends house, and then live in a car or a box. Gym membership can take care of a shower.
Hopefully having 35 full time developers at IBM contributing code back to the project will really help this situation.
OO.o is great software and I'm quite happy with it
Adding more people to a late project will make it later.
I'd like to be able to accomplish the same on any linux distro, as in not using packages. I'm glad gentoo got it working with there package manager, but I was doing this before gentoo was created and at the moment I am a fedora man. At the time I was attempting this I was a slackware man.
I don't have a practical use for cross compiling at the moment, but perhaps someday I will.
Several years ago I tried making a linux to windows cross compiler and failed.
FWIW, if your issue was GCC politics that's pretty much what caused the egcs split (and re-merge eventually, with a new philosophy and maintenance crew in charge of GCC). So if you looked at things prior to the gcc 2.95 era, you were looking at a different set of maintainers (and politics/philosophy/etc) than what's there now.
Its not that I care about the particulars of GCCs politics. I just want there to be multiple sets of open source compiler politics. I'm glad that egcs was a temporary split. I started using linux around the point of it being reemerged. However, I want there to be another group of people trying another set of ideas, challenging a few sacred cows that GCC holds dear. I don't know what those sacred cows are, but I assume that those who worked on Open Watcom, PCC and GCC have different ideas on how a compiler should work and as a result we get a wider pool of ideas being implemented. This means some duplication of effort, but in the end competition is good.
I had no problems in the 2.96 era or thereabouts building a linux->windows cross-compiler using only the GCC-included instructions; I basically did:
1. Build binutils (linker), using "./configure --target=i386-mingw32 --prefix=/usr/local" or whatever target you're using
2. untar pre-built libc/headers in/usr/local
3. Build gcc using "./configure --target=i386-mingw32 --prefix=/usr/local --with-gnu-as=i386-redhat-linux".
The flags might be slightly wrong as that's from memory. Note that I didn't bother bootstrapping libc; if you want, that's also doable; see, e.g., http://www.libsdl.org/extras/win32/cross/README.txt if you want a simple hand-holding script to do it for you.
I think I was missing the prebuilt libc part. If thats all that I was missing I'm going to be quite angry. The long howto that explains the origin of the term canadian cross compiler does not mention that one small detail. Perhaps I'll give it a try.
What would be really cool is to see from someone like the OpenBSD crowd, if they're so keen on C, develop some verification tools that maybe only work on a very, very restricted subset of C. Any code which does not conform to this restricted "more easily verifiable" subset of C in the core OS would be rejected. I don't know how practical it would be, but it would be cool to see:). I mean as an academic, obviously I think we should all be using Z, but I understand this doesn't make good sense in a lot of real-world projects. But you want to get serious about correctness, don't pussy foot around: get serious about correctness.
I think you miss the point. The OpenBSD people are married to Unix and C, in much the same way as Bjarne believes the answer is to fix C++, and not to use Java and C#. Yes your right, it would be nice if one of them "sees the light" and programs in something where you just can't create a buffer overflow so easily. That being said, they should write the lcompiler/vm/interperter/kernel that runs under that as they have proven themselves to be one of the few chosen by $DIETY to write decent C. Until a cpu is created where you can handle arrays in a non dangerous manner on the machine code level, someone will have to write in C or assembly.
I don't follow politics, so care to explain what's wrong with gcc's politics? Or, what _is_ gcc's politics?
I honestly don't know. However, it is an old project maintained by people. They have very specific ideas of how things should work, just like linus has very specific ideas about development (no C++ code in the kernel, you could use something besides GIT, but you would be an idiot, etc.)
Now I don't know much about the inner workings of GCC or Watcom, but I do know this. Several years ago I tried making a linux to windows cross compiler and failed. I think I put a decent amount of effort into my attempts and I definitely knew how toproduce a standard linux hosted linux targeted instance of GCC that would produce working binaries. A few years later I installed watcom and while it did not support Linux, I could install already working binaries that allowed me to compile dos, windows, os/2 and netware binaries from my windows machine.
Now the reasons for this are largely political. GCC works just fine as a cross compiler, I'm sure today I could get it to work now that I have written a lot more code, compiled more tarballs, and generally know more than I did then. I was able to get a freebsd to windows cross compiler working just fine thanks to the ports collection. Watcom never got a ready for prime time linux compiler, but what they shipped to end users as "experimental" always was a windows hosted compiler targeting linux.
Now there is no technical reason that gcc or a third party can't make the cross compiling process simpler, but other than poor college students that like to experiment, anyone who needs a cross compiler either can do it themselves, can hire someone that can, or has to do a lot of hoop jumping. Watcom, being open sourced abandon ware, creates binariy releases. Being it currently only supports one cpu and a handful of binary formats, the build system happens to build a compiler for each possible target.
It all comes down to people and there opinions, and that by definition is politics. The people that use the products and control the development have different ideas and goals, and this reflects in the finished products.
Slashdot Mirror
People drink to get drunk. Over clocking their liver would make them drink more.
You can do a lot with the .NET API. However, there are certain times P/Invokeing Win32 API calls are neccessary. For example I have to use
these API calls to be able to create a dropdown list of only non-removeable drives. Another example is performing certain functions with
JetSQL (MS Access) databases.
You have a big logic flaw their. If we elected libertarians, they would stop passing and try to repeal "consumer protection" acts. Therefore leading to less protection of big business. I'm not saying that pure libertarianism is the answer, just your particular argument is flawed.
Also, did you ever think that liberterianism is a reactionary view. Maybe when we get a bit closer to libertarianism, the same people will clamor for a shift to slightly bigger government.
Nobody cares if their competitor looses two year worth of profits unless it benefits them. If I sell a million dollars worth of insulin a year and you sell a billion, I will market this cure if it has the potential to make me 1.1 million a year. I don't give a crap about you loosing a billion dollars a year, unless I think that will allow me to buy you out. Maybe I could use this as a bargaining tool, I'll license you the drug if you license me the cancer drug. However, no one cares about "hurting" the competition unless its in their best interest.
Shouldn't MS be the one fixing the problems in MS software? I can see why there aren't many people volunteering to solve what is not their problem in the first place.
It is their obligation. However, some people might want to solve Microsoft problems because Microsoft won't and it benefits them.
At this point, all the pies Google plans to have their thumbs in are nothing more than vaporware.
There are certain documents that I store in google docs and spreadsheets. I'd hardly call their apps vaporware.
Microsoft has a product. Google's online office tools perform a similar function. Its very possible people can say that Google's suite is "good enough" for some people not to buy Office. On top of that, if someone uses Google's office suite because its free and then decides they need more functionality, they would be more likely to consider Open Office if they already find free office suites as acceptable.
Look at the IE versus Netscape competition of the browser wars. Netscape and Microsoft were both giving away browsers for free. They both wanted their browser to dominate so they could sell their other products, that were delivered to the users through browsers.
...will they cast the Pontiac Trans-Am again, or will it be something new? Fans want to know!Well GM has resurrected the Camaro. All they have to do is paint it black and add a gold flaming chicken.
Of course they could make him a Charger and give him two brothers from Dixie as a driver. Then he will be unstoppable.
A display of the second amendment is offensive to some that oppose firearm access.
Since when does government concern itself with not offending others?
I don't think a degree makes you a safer bus driver. I'm from Queens (part of the NYC metro area) and I know enough to respect buses when I drive. I've only seen 2 bus accidents in my life and had less than 5 drivers that had the "I was in an accident" badge.
In regards to buses being empty half the time, the buss has to take the off peak route to get back to the on peak route of the moment. How do you propose that gets fixed? Also I don't have a problem getting around the area by bus. You have to wait around for a while for most buses after 10 pm, but very few places have buses that run that late.
I went to your homepage. I hope you don't have aspirations of making a living as a professional photographer unless you plan on getting a job with Getty, or photographing weddings. Stock is destroying your industry. Although, you can make easy side money with a stock agency.
I'm sorry, I know a professional photographer pushing 50 in NYC. He says no ones making money any more.
...aren't going to find anything here to change their minds.When you hear people like Linus talk about the license (the good ol' GPL v2, that is), it sounds very reasonable - I gave you code, so you have to give back what you went on to accomplish with it. Except that it's not enough to post Linus (or whoever the original programmer was) a CD with your latest and greatest; you have to provide convenient source code access to anyone who ever received your software, for every version that you ever distributed, for years. If you have a serious customer base, even if those "customers" are getting your stuff for free, this requirement is neither easy nor cheap. Better take it seriously though, because the FSF has shown it intends to come down hard on those who fall short.
And we're not even talking about GPL v3 here.
If you read the gpl (v2) you would realize its not that hard:
Also, just make the source available via a html page with google ads. If enough people download it, you'll make money.
I currently make just under 30 in DFW, if not for side work, we wouldn't make it. Your advice would be well taken by many here, I am sure, just remember not everyone *can* live under their means if their means are small and their needs are great (I could live very comfortably as a bachelor on 30,000 but not with kids). Yes, a wife and kids were my choice, but I shouldn't have to chose between a family and the ability to have a decent job.
What the hell are you doing for a living making so little money? I've been there, dropped out of college and worked at burger king for a bit. Did security for a bit and my salaray at my first tech job was under 30k.
Your in a rare situation though. All the people I know making under 30k at your age lack a proper command of the English language. Unless DFW (Dallas Fort Worth?) is really that depressed, I don't see you not being able to eventually find better employment than what you have now. Regardless, your kids will reach school age and your wife will be able to work part time.
Thats really the fault of the employees. You can live below your means with most jobs if you try hard enough, especially if your single. You will have to make sacrifices. You will have to rent, live in a not nice neighborhood, and you will have to cook your own meals. If you can live with your parents you have a leg up.
The hardest part of living below your means is having the willpower not to spend all your money. I'm doing it with student loans, a car payment, a 43.6 mile each way commute, and a girlfriend. I make tough choices. Have part of your direct deposit sent to a savings account that you don't have ATM access too. Through that money into an investment that you will think twice about selling.
Basically, once you move a big chunk of your money into savings each month, you can live "paycheck to paycheck" with the rest. So your still a wage slave at the start of things, but as your wealth grows, you become more empowered to "walk away."
dead authors may have live heirs who need the money
it would be nice to think that one's work could benefit one's children for some time
OTOH, current corporate perversions attempting to lock revenue streams in perpetuity are abominations
OTTH, Admiral Heinlein, I salute you sir!
Ok here's an idea. How about we limit copyright to a period of lets say 20 years, and if authors want to take care of there kids they have to invest a portion of their income during that 20 years. I work for the man, and thats how I plan on taking care of my kids. Of course I specifically don't want to help them too much after college. I believe in making them go out on there own, and charging rent that is cheaper than market value but not insignificant if they wish to remain living with me.
If the tax man gets his way imaginary property will get taxed too.
See: 2nd Life, Sale of WOW characters/items/gold, automotive taxes(DMV "fees"), etc.
Other than land, and registered automobiles, you generally do not need to pay the government anything for what you already own. Yes you can reduce the cost of shelter greatly if you take some extreme measures. However, living off the grid is generally an extreme measure.
Yes there are other expenses and considerations. However, its been done before. If you own a van and don't park it in the same spot all the time, you should be able to get away with sleeping in it.
The Cathedral used as the original case study was RMS's own EMACS. Its really not about control or lack thereof, the problem is how happy the users and "outside contributors" agree with those that control the "master fork." Of course this is where Git's greatness truely comes in.
Because its more than 20 years old and historians can use FOIA requests to study this.
Other than real property, possessions only get taxed at time of purchase. If you really wanted to, you could declare your residency at your parents house, or a friends house, and then live in a car or a box. Gym membership can take care of a shower.
Adding more people to a late project will make it later.
I've always wondered why Thunderbird couldn't figure out that messages with both Viagra and Cialis in the subject line are SPAM.
As I always tell people, what If I am emailing my doctor about Viagra.
I'd like to be able to accomplish the same on any linux distro, as in not using packages. I'm glad gentoo got it working with there package manager, but I was doing this before gentoo was created and at the moment I am a fedora man. At the time I was attempting this I was a slackware man.
I don't have a practical use for cross compiling at the moment, but perhaps someday I will.
FWIW, if your issue was GCC politics that's pretty much what caused the egcs split (and re-merge eventually, with a new philosophy and maintenance crew in charge of GCC). So if you looked at things prior to the gcc 2.95 era, you were looking at a different set of maintainers (and politics/philosophy/etc) than what's there now.
Its not that I care about the particulars of GCCs politics. I just want there to be multiple sets of open source compiler politics. I'm glad that egcs was a temporary split. I started using linux around the point of it being reemerged. However, I want there to be another group of people trying another set of ideas, challenging a few sacred cows that GCC holds dear. I don't know what those sacred cows are, but I assume that those who worked on Open Watcom, PCC and GCC have different ideas on how a compiler should work and as a result we get a wider pool of ideas being implemented. This means some duplication of effort, but in the end competition is good.
I had no problems in the 2.96 era or thereabouts building a linux->windows cross-compiler using only the GCC-included instructions; I basically did:1. Build binutils (linker), using "./configure --target=i386-mingw32 --prefix=/usr/local" or whatever target you're using
2. untar pre-built libc/headers in
3. Build gcc using "./configure --target=i386-mingw32 --prefix=/usr/local --with-gnu-as=i386-redhat-linux".
The flags might be slightly wrong as that's from memory. Note that I didn't bother bootstrapping libc; if you want, that's also doable; see, e.g., http://www.libsdl.org/extras/win32/cross/README.txt if you want a simple hand-holding script to do it for you.
I think I was missing the prebuilt libc part. If thats all that I was missing I'm going to be quite angry. The long howto that explains the origin of the term canadian cross compiler does not mention that one small detail. Perhaps I'll give it a try.
What would be really cool is to see from someone like the OpenBSD crowd, if they're so keen on C, develop some verification tools that maybe only work on a very, very restricted subset of C. Any code which does not conform to this restricted "more easily verifiable" subset of C in the core OS would be rejected. I don't know how practical it would be, but it would be cool to see :). I mean as an academic, obviously I think we should all be using Z, but I understand this doesn't make good sense in a lot of real-world projects. But you want to get serious about correctness, don't pussy foot around: get serious about correctness.
I think you miss the point. The OpenBSD people are married to Unix and C, in much the same way as Bjarne believes the answer is to fix C++, and not to use Java and C#. Yes your right, it would be nice if one of them "sees the light" and programs in something where you just can't create a buffer overflow so easily. That being said, they should write the lcompiler/vm/interperter/kernel that runs under that as they have proven themselves to be one of the few chosen by $DIETY to write decent C. Until a cpu is created where you can handle arrays in a non dangerous manner on the machine code level, someone will have to write in C or assembly.
I honestly don't know. However, it is an old project maintained by people. They have very specific ideas of how things should work, just like linus has very specific ideas about development (no C++ code in the kernel, you could use something besides GIT, but you would be an idiot, etc.)
Now I don't know much about the inner workings of GCC or Watcom, but I do know this. Several years ago I tried making a linux to windows cross compiler and failed. I think I put a decent amount of effort into my attempts and I definitely knew how toproduce a standard linux hosted linux targeted instance of GCC that would produce working binaries. A few years later I installed watcom and while it did not support Linux, I could install already working binaries that allowed me to compile dos, windows, os/2 and netware binaries from my windows machine.
Now the reasons for this are largely political. GCC works just fine as a cross compiler, I'm sure today I could get it to work now that I have written a lot more code, compiled more tarballs, and generally know more than I did then. I was able to get a freebsd to windows cross compiler working just fine thanks to the ports collection. Watcom never got a ready for prime time linux compiler, but what they shipped to end users as "experimental" always was a windows hosted compiler targeting linux.
Now there is no technical reason that gcc or a third party can't make the cross compiling process simpler, but other than poor college students that like to experiment, anyone who needs a cross compiler either can do it themselves, can hire someone that can, or has to do a lot of hoop jumping. Watcom, being open sourced abandon ware, creates binariy releases. Being it currently only supports one cpu and a handful of binary formats, the build system happens to build a compiler for each possible target.
It all comes down to people and there opinions, and that by definition is politics. The people that use the products and control the development have different ideas and goals, and this reflects in the finished products.