Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-Id: <200006131745.AA00397@mlx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v148.2.1)
From: MarketLogix <mlx AT mlx DOT com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:45:09 -0700
To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: Is -mno-cygwin support being removed????
Reply-To: mlx AT san DOT rr DOT com
References: <3946544E DOT 6AC55632 AT objectcentral DOT com>
	<39466928 DOT C8C011D3 AT carlthompson DOT net>

Not just you man ...

I'm always reluctant to upgrade for fear that
something subtle that I've come to depend on will
stop working or, even worse, work just (slightly)
differently.  I've come to depend on this stuff
and its free so I'm not gonna bitch. Nope, I just
sit back quietly and live with it - still VERY glad
that it exists, even such that it is.

There is, no doubt, a "fix it or shut up cause its
free" attitude here. I'm not saying that its wrong
(I'm really not!) but I do believe its here & here
to stay !!!  This issue has been danced around for
the last couple of years now in many incarnations.

Its always the same, a new release, a barrage of
email problems, veteran Cygwinners telling the
hapless to stop whining & go look it up.  Hey,
I'm not that experienced with this OpenSource
stuff, maybe thats the way it s'posed to be.

Having said all that, I will attempt to upgrade again
as soon as I get well-rested and about 4-5 days with
a very low potential workload. I just don't have the
time or brain capacity to drop yet another layer down
in my toolkit to learn Cygwin in any real(or imagined)
depth. If that makes me a freeloader, then I'm sorry.
I did what I could, I bought the CD.

All told, I truly believe that this is, by far, the best
solution of its kind on the planet, AFAIK there is not
even a close second - keep up the good work.
I know you're all having fun.

Viva la Cygwin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


bisk


Begin forwarded message:

Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-mlx=san DOT rr DOT com AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>,  
<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:02:32 -0700
From: Carl Thompson <cet AT carlthompson DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.14-5.0 i686)
To: "Bruce E. Wampler" <bruce AT objectcentral DOT com>
Cc: Cygwin List <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject: Re: Is -mno-cygwin support being removed????

I am one of the core developers of the FLTK GUI toolkit and we are in much
the same bind as you are.  We've relied on Cygwin as a major part of our
Windows platform support in the past and it would be nice if it worked now.

And before some zealous person says "it's open source so fix it yourself" I
don't think that's reasonable.  I don't know the Cygwin code, I've never
built the Cygwin code and I don't know the GCC code.  The Cygwin developers
could fix it better, faster and more cleanly than I if they choose to.  If
there were a bug in FLTK that caused previously working applications to
fail, I would feel honor bound to fix it because I realize that real people
depend on it.  I certainly would not say "well, I don't feel like fixing my
bug myself because you and your code are not important to me so you should
fix my code for me and if your fix is up to my standards I might consider
incoporating it."  I hear a lot of that here.

Not all Cygwin developers want to develop Cygwin.

Personally, I feel that if you release something to the open source
community and ask people to use it, then you have a social obligation to the
community to keep that product working reasonably, and that includes the
timely fixing of bugs that don't affect you personally.  But that's just me,
I guess.

Carl Thompson



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com