Subject: Re: cygwin without Win32
From: Sam Steingold <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:44:38 -0500

> * Christopher Faylor <[email-masked]> [2004-01-20 12:13:36 -0500]:
>
>>> > I wonder how close to an approximation of reality a simple
>>> > poll/form on the  cygwin.com front page would generate?
>>>
>>>   I wonder if running a script across the list archive to extract
>>> all the cycheck output and counting the different systems that way
>>> would produce a result with any meaning to it at all?
>>
>>Perhaps only which systems have more problems (or which systems have more
>>consciencious users that actually read <http://cygwin.com/problems.html>).
>
> I guess I'll keep making the observation that any poll would be
> worthless as long as people seem to be ignoring that fact and still
> coming up with alternate ways of polling.

download count for setup.exe should be a reliable statistics.

> We are not dropping support for older Windows systems.

how about the following maintenance nightmare: detect SFU at configure
time and use them as detected, then distribute two versions:
traditional win32 for older systems and SFU-based for NT-derivatives.

-- 
Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k
<http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/>
<http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com>
If abortion is murder, then oral sex is cannibalism.

--
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/