From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25433 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2007 12:53:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 25344 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Aug 2007 12:53:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao102.cox.net) (68.230.240.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:53:06 +0000 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070828125305.DSRZ19980.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:53:05 -0400 Received: from black ([70.181.32.198]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id hQt41X0074GV2Jm0000000; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:53:04 -0400 Received: from bob by black with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IQ0Z6-0001Dt-C7 for gdb@sourceware.org; Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:53:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:53:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Questions about gdb/mi support on the Mac Message-ID: <20070828125304.GL6213@cox.net> References: <46CF1A71.1020002@sun.com> <200708281029.27514.apoenitz@trolltech.com> <18131.58128.433536.819432@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070828105502.GA7419@caradoc.them.org> <20070828112438.GJ6213@cox.net> <20070828113349.GA9440@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070828113349.GA9440@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00232.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:33:49AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:24:38AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > Well, in that case, hopefully people realize that apple is making some > > silly decisions by making a monopoly on gdb front ends. Not that I > > believe this was there intention, but I do believe it was a > > consequence of there irresponsibility. > > You may want to think about the reality of software development a > little. They have the only port of GDB to Mac OS X; anyone else could > have done one, but no one did. They seem to want to contribute it > back, too. They just never have time. This is partly because of > the immense schedule pressure at Apple. It's also partly because of > how much work it is to contribute to GDB. Ha, the only port of GDB, and it only works with their front end! That sounds like a monopoly to me. In fact, it sounds like one of the tactics msft used when making content for there web browser. I do not think that apple would have made this decision on purpose. I'm also not suggesting some sort of conspiracy theory. I understand how this sort of issue could have come about, because the original apple programmers either didn't care, or didn't think about other front ends. In the future, I think they should be more friendly to the rest of the community and there users by either sticking to the mi that GDB supports, or making a -i=mi-apple protocol. That's just my 2 cents as a front end developer. You can either listen to it and accept it, or shrug it off as I'm a crazy lunatic. Bob Rossi