Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<003f01c0e61d$62677000$0a00a8c0@PWORK>
Reply-To:	"C. Porter Bassett" <cporter AT byu DOT edu>
From:	"C. Porter Bassett" <porter AT et DOT byu DOT edu>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<5 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 14 DOT 2 DOT 20010526100626 DOT 026b8160 AT ks DOT teknowledge DOT com>
Subject:	Re: About Cygwin 1.0
Date:	Sat, 26 May 2001 13:52:24 -0600
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200

I, for one, would like to hear and straightforward reply to this question.
I don't know too much about cygwin's history.  Was cygwin 1.0 the version
that cygnus was selling for like $100 before they got bought by red hat?
Was is that much more stable than what we have now?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall R Schulz" <rrschulz AT cris DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: About Cygwin 1.0


>
> Just when you think you've heard it all...
>
> Maybe the writer meant "immortal" instead of "immoral?"
>
> Randall Schulz
> Mountain View, CA USA
>
>
> At 09:25 2001-05-26, you wrote:
> >Hello!
> >
> >Thank you for the free Cygwin software. One thing I'd like to talk about:
> >I was surprised to find no information on your pages (especially FAQ)
> >about the reasons why you have not released the stable Cygwin 1.0
> >via the net.
> >   Is it that you want people to use the unstable versions in order
> >to hasten the development of future versions (by their bug reports)?
> >In the spirit of the Gnu Public Licence, that would seem immoral to me.
> >If the public develops the software (under GPL) with their contributions,
> >they should also be allowed to enjoy the fruits (and not be constrained
to
> >keep toiling with bugs when a stable version exists).
> >   So please, let me know the true reasons why Cygwin 1.0 is not
> >distributed on the net.
> >
> >   If people could more readily use stable versions in their
developments,
> >perhaps Cygwin's reputation would improve (as it pertains to
reliability).
> >
> >I thank you and I wish you success with your Cygwin affairs.
>
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -