On 4 August 2012 01:37, Uriel <[email protected]> wrote: > Yea, because obviously what we needed is even more unportable GNU extensions.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather use an effective unportable tool than an ineffective portable one. cls
On 4 August 2012 01:37, Uriel <[email protected]> wrote: > Yea, because obviously what we needed is even more unportable GNU extensions.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather use an effective unportable tool than an ineffective portable one. cls