Subject: Re: Beta-19 and configurations....
From: [email-masked] (Christopher Faylor)

10 Feb 1998 10:01:53 -0800
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

In article <[email-masked]>,
Vassilii Khachaturov  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>I suggest we all carefully think over and design WHAT exactly is to be
>included into the distribution of b19, and what options should the setup
>be given.
>Maybe, it's worth to do less things in the setup GUI, and package a
>minimalized perl+win32 support to manipulate the registry from upon the
>installation?
>
>Things I think are important from those that are not distributed
>currently, and were not cleanly announced previously as those to be
>icluded into b19, are (as understood, optional -- to be selected at the
>setup stage):
>
>* THE SOURCES -- ready to recompile all the tools in-place This could
>be great in boosting up the development.  I personally think of some
>hacking around with cygwin.dll -- but still had no time with it,
>especially due to the initial overhead of the sources installation and
>compilation env. setup.
>
>This is the way they did it in Linux, and it worked.

[more stuff deleted]

This suggestion is like 99% of the, um, stuff on this mailing list.  It
is full of ideas for "somebody else" to implement.  This list is full of
managers but there are very very very few workers.

Since you mentioned Linux, allow me to point out that the model that
worked very well for Linux does not seem to be happening here.  In Linux
development there was a slow ramping up as people came on board,
contributing their talents to the project in terms of *code* and actual
useful work.  If a Makefile needed to be rewritten, it was rewritten.
If a script was required, someone wrote it.  If a feature was needed
somebody added it.

In the cygwin model, people contribute their opinions.  If a Makefile
needs to be rewritten, somebody complains that the Makefile is not
working as it should.  If a script is required, somebody is amazed that
it is not already in existence.  If a feature is needed, somebody claims
that they are now moving to OpenNT because it is missing.

I wish I understood why this is.  It would be nice to have an active
community like Linux which had a core of helpful and knowledgable people
willing to pitch in and fix things.  Alas, that does not seem to be the
case here.
-- 
http://www.bbc.com/	[email-masked]			"Strange how unreal
VMS=>UNIX Solutions	Boston Business Computing	 the real can be."
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".