Subject: Re: About Cygwin 1.0
From: "Craig McGeachie" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 09:03:49 +1000

On 26 May 2001, at 19:25, Vesa Pekka Paatero wrote:
>   If people could more readily use stable versions in their
>   developments,
> perhaps Cygwin's reputation would improve (as it pertains to
> reliability).

My own little private grizzle.  I would like to see every one who 
complains about Cygwins "lack of stability" have to work with 
Sun/Netscape iPlanet Application Server 6.o.

It has been said that everything is a matter of perspective, and from 
where I stand, Cygwin has the following features by comparison:
  - Stability: Works day after day, without mysterious failure.
    Upgrades do not cause 2 out of 3 of your existing applications
    to cease working (I'm not kidding about this).
  - Documentation: A high volume mailing list, the GNU info files,
    and man pages from here to eternity.  It beats a one paragraph
    entry that tells you that directory failover is possible, and
    then doesn't tell you how to cope if directory fail over
    actually occurs.
  - Support: If a problem is serious, it can, and will, usally be
    fixed in less than 2 months.
  - Value for money: You get all of this _without_ having to spend
    around AU$1,000,000.00

My only is Ctl-C handling in bash, but since I have a usable work 
around, I am yet another who hasn't bothered to fire up gdb and try 
to debug it.  Mea culpa.

-----------------+---------------------------------------------------
Craig McGeachie  | #include <cheesy_tag.h>
+61 (410) 774902 | while (!inebriated) c2h5oh = (++bottle)->contents;
-----------------+---------------------------------------------------

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