Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/06/05/13:42:43
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 06:03:34PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 05:25:18PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> I threw together a horrible C program to ask Windows whether a file was
>>> sparse. .exe and .dll files made with a 1.5.0 Cygwin are. I haven't
>posted
>>> the test program, because it is too messy.
>>> [...]
>>> I give proof that dll/exe files are being created sparse above.
>>
>> Uhm...
>
>I like to think that I'm sufficiently trustworthy not to lie about a clear
>yes/no fact.
If you can't back up your conclusions with actual code why should we
assume that you are infallible? No one is that trustworthy.
There has been very little actual data provided here beyond the "It must
be bad because Microsoft doesn't turn it on by default" argument. Since
Cygwin uses all sorts of things that Microsoft doesn't turn on by default,
I assume that, by extension, most of cygwin is really bad.
>But, fine, I've attached my messy code.
Thank you.
>Personally I think "Don't risk anything if there is no potential gain" is
>reasonably persuasive.
Lets use the popular reasoning here. If there was no potential gain
then Microsoft would not have provided the option, would they? Since
they did there has to be *some* potential gain.
>>We're now on the path of opinion. My opinion is to drop 9x/Me support
>>entirely from Cygwin since it just requires ugly hacks in the code.
>>But that's not actually an argument to do it in reality.
>
>Well, keeping 9x/Me support gains 9x/Me users a lot. What does
>sparseness-on-by-default gain users? If anything, I don't see it.
Thanks for not mentioning that you think a CYGWIN environment variable
option is the way to go for this. I guess we're making minor progress
now.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -