Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6866.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: OT: whining (was: RE: Why is gcc3.2 prerelease?) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:33:52 -0800 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Stephan Mueller" To: "Jim Drash" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2003 21:33:59.0615 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF0294F0:01C2E35E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id h25LYLT12264 I'm not being thin-skinned -- I was using an example from Andrew's mail (the M$ reference) to have some fun with his 'careless mistake' comment. I used it because it was conveniently available, is all. (Note how my wording was virtually identical to Andrew's.) I think by 'the author' you're referring to me (not Andrew), so I'll address your comment about whining. 1) I wouldn't call my comment whining :-) 2) what would you propose I do that counts as a positive way to change the perception? I think that a polite comment or two rebutting a clearly (IMHO) over-the-top suggestion that Microsoft has 'infiltrated FSF' to 'sabotage' things, in a post with some other, excellent points (your claim, not mine :-) is a decent way to go about this. And oh yeah, when I'm not posting here, I work really hard on Microsoft software, removing bugs, getting others to remove bugs, designing things well, that sort of thing. We're now off-topic for the list; sorry. I won't reply again in public on this thread. I've also re-added the original thread below, since the text of this message and the one I'm replying to make references to text in the original discussion. stephan(speaking only for myself, not my employer); -----Original Message----- From: Jim Drash [mailto:JDrash AT eesus DOT jnj DOT com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 12:07 PM To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: Why is gcc3.2 prerelease? > Um, who is this M$ you refer to? ... We know there is no "$" in the name. M$ is a widely-held albeit slightly derogatory reference to Microsoft. Why be so thin-skinned? It is good to see that someone from Microsoft is lurking in this mailing list. (I guess). While the author makes some excellent points it is preceeding by what appears to be some whining about perceptions held by open source programming vs. closed programming. Too bad! Perception is reality. Either work in positive way to change the perception or change the reality but don't whine about it. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -----Original Message----- From: Stephan Mueller [mailto:smueller AT Exchange DOT Microsoft DOT com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:53 AM To: Andrew Markebo Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: Why is gcc 3.2 prerelease? Um, who is this M$ you refer to? If it's a company named Microsoft, there's no $ in the name. We all know how much damage a simple mistake can cause. Just imagine if someone were trying to do it deliberately. Seriously, the notion about a careless mistake is a good one. I am amused about the way the notion is applied though. In cases where careless mistakes are made in commercial products, folks (perhaps like yourself, Andrew**) suggest that commercial vendors are being evil and malicious. Now, when there's a potential for careless mistakes in open source software, folks (specifically yourself, Andrew) suggest that... commercial vendors are being evil and malicious! Saboteurs indeed. Um, no, you can't blame Microsoft for flaws in open source code. Mistakes occur in software. They are nearly inevitable, especially in large complex pieces of software, regardless of the 'religion'* of the developers. Folks who write significant software generally take pride in their work and do their best to make their software as good as possible, given available resources and requirements. Period. There is no conspiracy. Finding ways to eliminate such mistakes is of course, a good thing. And yes, in general, it is better to detect errors than not, and better to detect them at compile time than at run time. And in general, I think you'll find that all compiler suites under active development, get better in this regard as time passes. stephan(); ** and perhaps not by you, Andrew. But the suggestions are frequently made by some. * by 'religion' I'm strictly referring to one's opinions regarding whether software should be 'free' (as in free speech, not free beer) or if it's actually OK to charge for it. That sort of thing. -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Adams [TEPG Sunbury] [mailto:bruadams AT tycoint DOT com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:25 AM To: Andrew Markebo Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: Why is gcc 3.2 prerelease? >-----Original Message----- >From: Andrew Markebo [mailto:andrew DOT markebo AT telia DOT com] >Sent: 05 March 2003 16:15 >To: Bruce Adams [TEPG Sunbury] >Subject: Re: Why is gcc 3.2 prerelease? > > >Hi! > >I suppose you have heard this, but I vote for that GCC 3 burfs on an >error (runtime) that GCC 2.95 were to stupid to burf on.. or similar.. > I wouldn't mind if it "burfed" in an intelligable manner. Better still if it did it at compile or link time. Sometimes I worry that saboteurs from M$ have infiltrated GNU and FSF. We all know how much damage a simple mistake missed by a programmer and a careless reviewer can cause. Just imagine if someone was trying to do it deliberately. Shudder.... >I agree with you though that it might be a bit weird we are running on >a prerelease gcc that is a little old.. sort of.. but well, noone have >maybe had the time to upgrade it.. > > /Andy ======================================================================== ==== Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Tyco Safety Products. Any prices for the supply of goods or services are only valid if supported by a formal written quotation. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, including replies and forwarded copies (which may contain alterations) subsequently transmitted from Tyco Saftey Products are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. In this event, please notify us via e-mail at 'helpdesk DOT tepg AT tycoint DOT com' or telephone on 0121 255 6499 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. ======================================================================== ==== -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/