Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <018d01c0e66a$c52c71c0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: "Dave Cook" <dcook AT caveduck DOT com>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <002501c0e662$0ed24a60$6800a8c0 AT dbca950> <016b01c0e662$415f9320$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <003d01c0e665$9e71aff0$6800a8c0 AT dbca950> <20010527003757 DOT A12171 AT redhat DOT com> <004d01c0e669$152d0380$6800a8c0 AT dbca950>
Subject: Re: bluescreen during XF86/cygwin build
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 15:06:20 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 May 2001 04:58:04.0487 (UTC) FILETIME=[9CE96570:01C0E669]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Cook" <dcook AT caveduck DOT com>
To: <cygwin-xfree AT cygwin DOT com>; <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: bluescreen during XF86/cygwin build


> Chris Faylor wrote:
> > With an OS like W2K there is really no way that Cygwin should be
able to
> > cause a blue screen.  If it does, it's an OS bug, not a Cygwin bug.
>
> You can't necessarily just tell the customer "it's Microsoft's
problem".
> I'm a veteran of those wars...we did an NT server product a couple of
years
> back that ran into a Win32 call that leaked ~1KB of nonpaged memory
every
> time you used it in a certain perfectly legal way.  Not harmful for
normal apps,
> but fatal for a server that wanted to run for weeks.

That's exactly why more customers are moving to open source os's. Not
because a specific software vendor has buggy code, but because they want
confidence that the whole problem is transparent and fixable.

> From a customer centric view, if I can run command X on a normally
configured
> Linux box and it works, but the same supposedly supported command
fails in
> Cygwin, then it's a Cygwin problem (though perhaps technically not a
Cygwin bug).

Only for the briefest glance (helicopter view!). Customers do understand
the concept of external dependencies - in the business world that is a
huge chunk of risk management. The simple fact is that risk, in a
source-transparent software world is easier to manage than in a
non-transparent world. So I think any customer will understand that
things may not run _with_ Cygwin, without it being a "Cygwin problem".

Thats not to say that we're not interested in working around a MS bug...
Thus my first question of "where did it crash". You might like to
install the MS debug symbols.

Rob


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