X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100913192058.GA26408@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> References: <20100913192058.GA26408@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:48:49 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cygwin instabilities From: Al To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com > It depends on what is meant by "become". =A0If it means will there be a c= oncerted > effort to "harden" Cygwin for a server then the answer is likely "not unl= ess > someone pays for it." > > That points back to paying Red Hat for support. I think you use the term support in the wrong field. It is the enduser who buys support, not the developers. Also the enduser doesn't buy support to make a product more stable. It's works the other way. A stable product is choosen by more endusers, which in return buy more support. So it's Red Hat, who has to invest into stability of Cygwin to make it as succesfull as possible. If they don't see a challange in this, than Cygwin is in a kind of cul-de-sac with Red Hat I guess. Al -- 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