It is the other way around: Cutler supported the *minority* platform because it would keep the code "honest" and not allow them to start relying on Intel-only hacks.<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 19, 2008 5:39 PM, Greg Knaddison - GVS <<a href="mailto:Greg@growingventuresolutions.com">Greg@growingventuresolutions.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Jan 19, 2008 7:14 PM, Andrew ft <<a href="mailto:andrewft@gmail.com">andrewft@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> The parallel with the MySQL/Postgres debate is clear, and the arguments are<br>> identical.
<br><br></div>I wonder if Cutler ignored issues in the queue that needed a review<br>that were spoonfed to him with patches written by someone who didn't<br>use Mips but who wanted to maintain compatability. If that were the
<br>case then we'd have a identical situation.<br><br></flamebait><br><br>For the people who said that these threads are useless and that Karoly<br>is foolish to start them, note that the original issue finally got
<br>reviews and attention...after being posted here.<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="Wj3C7c"><br>Greg<br><br>--<br>Greg Knaddison<br>Denver, CO | <a href="http://knaddison.com/" target="_blank">http://knaddison.com</a><br>World Spanish Tour | <a href="http://wanderlusting.org/user/greg" target="_blank">
http://wanderlusting.org/user/greg</a><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>