Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/09/13/12:35:47
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 05:57:08PM +0200, Al wrote:
>>These two things are related. Remember that Cygwin is an open source
>
>Sure it is related, but that doesn't answer my question.
>
>>Who would keep counters of stable or instable setups? These number are
>>exceptionally hard to come by. Even if this list is now flooded with
>>"my setup works" and "mine too" posts, these numbers would not be
>
>No that is not the way to go. I think there are people which run
>Cygwin on more than 1 machine, so they have a personal estimation and
>experience.
>
>>representative. Users may have given up on Cygwin due to instabilities
>>without notifying the list. Others may run Cygwin so happily they
>>never
>
>Right. Similar I can't report the bugs for people telling me, they
>don't use Cygwin, because of stability issues they encountered in the
>past.
You seem to be approaching this problem as if people will say "Ah!
Stability issues! Right. Well, ok, here's what you need to know."
If we knew of stability issues they would be fixed. Don't assume that
since some nebulous person or persons couldn't get some version of
Cygwin running it means that there are well-known problems that we will
all clamor to proclaim.
If you think that asking a group of strangers for help with a nebulously
defined "instability" is really going to get you any useful responses
then you must not be well-acquainted with open source.
As a project lead, here's my advice: If you are concerned that Cygwin is
unstable then buy support from Red Hat. Then you have a guaranteed
recourse if something doesn't work.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -