I didn't imply that it was hacked, so why would I?
Your original post bears repeating:
The hacked site wasn't "the Linux development servers," it was the Free Software Foundation FTP site. It houses no Linux core source code, only code for GNU userland tools.
You didn't mention that GNU houses GCC. Telling half of the truth, especially when it has the tendency to be a sales job, is no better than flat out lying.
Yes, you did. Which I have pointed out to you. And you seem to be in denial about it.
You didn't mention that GNU houses GCC. Telling half of the truth, especially when it has the tendency to be a sales job, is no better than flat out lying.
The post that you refer to was a response to js1138's post, where he erroneously indicated that the hacked site was the Linux development server. It was not, I said so, and then you jumped in.
The reason that I didn't mention GCC was because I the original discussion was about core Linux software.
Spin all you want, but GCC is not Linux and the conversation was about Linux. GCC is a GNU tool. The Linux kernel is usually compiled with GCC, but it isn't mandatory. The Linux kernel can be compiled with CC (the BSD compiler,) the Intel compiler (and often is on new Intel platforms such as Itanium and Xeon,) Borland's C compiler and various other proprietary C compilers. Once GCC came into the conversation I did post a link to the entire story, unlike some other person.
The facts of the matter are:
You changed the direction of the conversation from Linux to GCC
You told only the bad part of the story and left the implication hanging that something might be wrong with GCC.
I merely filled in the rest of the story (the part that you convieniently left out) and admonished you to tell the whole story next time. For some reason, this bothers you.
Well, flipping the light on bothers cockroaches too, but I can't help that either.