Re: You should be proud of this
Well, there's always gonna be somebody whose mission in life is to wander around the internet on April F'in Fools day bitching about the April Fool's jokes. Hey, I don't like it either, but for me, it's a matter of functionality, not bitterness.
I'm unemployed (have been since just before Chrismas; good time to lose my job, eh?), but even I thought this was pretty damned funny.
Fine, whatever. Don't list your projects here. Apparently your fragile psyche is more valuable to you than having lots of people helping to make your software better (however indirectly).
Parting words: GET A LIFE. the world is a tough place, and it doesn't stop for anybody. EVER. More information (everything2.com) (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=162947). Life is hard. You deal with it, or you go see a shrink and blame your whole life on anybody but yourself.
Re: a sad observation (flame on?)
> I have seen gcc 3.2.1 outperform gcc
> 2.95.3 on
> video compression applications by 3-5%,
> on an
> Athlon running Linux and also on Cygwin.
> impressive. (gcc 2.96 is buggy btw,
> beware -- pull
> down mplayer if you doubt this.)
This is getting awfully tired. gcc 2.96 was buggy in its original tarball, to be sure. It had somewhere in the region of 350 patches issued that corrected this problem. Mplayer had bad code in it, which prevented it from compiling with 2.96-300(ish), and this was never formally admitted by the mplayer developers.
They silently fixed the problem, and their spin stuck: people still think to this day that 2.96 was a bad compiler (and like I said, 2.96-0 WAS, but we don't live in that era any more). This is the same type of fudmongering often seen by diehard Windows fans who say they tried Linux but it was too complex, and immature.
For them, it may have been.... 8 years ago when they tried it. They continue to refer back to this experience though, as if it reflects any measure of reality. They labor under the delusion that GNU never evolves, and that the state of the system is the same as it was 8 years ago.
This is so obviously false it is becoming difficult to find linux users who believe that it's a difficult operating system to install and use.
The only people who truly believe this are the ones who haven't touched it in 5 years-- just like the people who tried gcc 2.96, or read the bad press it got when it was new.
At the time gcc 3 was released, 2.96 was better. gcc 3.1 may well be better than 2.96, but at the time that gcc 3.0 was released, gcc 2.96 was more mature, better tested, had wider deployment, and was more reliable. It was also the most standards-compliant gcc to date.