Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/04/28/07:46:46
On 28 April 2006 12:30, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> cygming, not cygwin? ('ming' is a strong insult in the UK.
Yes, and we also do tongue-in-cheek humour quite well. Well, at least some
of us do.
> I get the impression the writer doesn't like cygwin.)
Who precisely do you suppose "the writer" would have been? Think hard
before answering: who could possibly have been responsible for writing the
cygwin port of gcc, used for compiling programs for cygwin? Give up? The
answer is "someone who would have to be a significant contributor to the
cygwin project". It would be strange to think that someone would spend all
that time and effort doing unpaid voluntary work if they didn't like cygwin
quite a lot. As a general guideline for logical reasoning, you should reject
any assumption you make that leads you to the conclusion that everyone else is
insane / stupid / irrational / entirely oblivious to their own best interests.
Occam's razor and all that.
> It's awfully tempting to conclude that the compiler is screwing you
> around (because the compiler's authors have been screwing it around,
> because they hate Cygwin?),
Well, then you are saying that ridiculous, paranoid, ludicrous conspiracy
theorising, based on zero information and even less research, is quite
tempting. Now go away and find out what MinGW is and why cygwin's compiler
might want to refer to it. Once you stop placing a superfluous emotional
colouring on the word you will be less distracted by irrelevancies and more
able to solve your bug rationally. Stop spreading misinformed FUD.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
--
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 -