Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
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-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Andrew DeFaria <ADeFaria AT Salira DOT com>
Subject: Re: setup.exe is too small
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:04:01 -0800
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <3E690941.5030800@Salira.com>
References: <20030306124038 DOT 46579 DOT qmail AT web40210 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>	 <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0303061352110 DOT 6752-100000 AT moria DOT atlanticsky DOT com>	 <3E67CD96 DOT 2060605 AT Salira DOT com> <00f701c2e431$db461990$78d96f83 AT pomello>	 <20030306225245 DOT GA13157 AT redhat DOT com>  <3E67D389 DOT 9030803 AT Salira DOT com> <1047025479 DOT 1076 DOT 20 DOT camel AT localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related;
 boundary="------------070500040905070704010707"
X-Complaints-To: usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ru, zh

--------------070500040905070704010707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Robert Collins wrote:

>> On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:02, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>
>
>>>> Christopher Faylor wrote
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> And, different agendas as well. No one in free software has to work
>>>>>> on things that they don't want to work on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, the theory that "You know how to do it. You're doing all this
>>>>>> other stuff, why don't you do this too?" doesn't really sound right
>>>>>> to me.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Chris do not view this as a justification for a "consumer" to demand
>>>> that a "producer" work for him. Rather I was trying to point out why
>>>> a "consumer" or a "semi-hacker" for that matter, might be reluctanct
>>>> to dive into a dev/patch project that they might view "over there head".
>
>>
>> If they aren't willing to dive in,


The word was reluctant not unwilling.

>> then they still have options other than asking for charity...
>>
>> *) Contribute something for the feature. I.e. 'I'll write up a web
>> page detailing how to use various aspects of setup, IF you will make
>> the chooser resizable for me'.


OK - I'll write up a web page detailing how to use various aspects of
setup, IF you will make the chooser resizable for me.

>> *) Contract someone else to implement the feature for them. "I'll put
>> $20 into a pool for the programmer that completes the feature".


I don't have a spare $20 to put into a pool but I'll put in my vote. Is
that good enough? :-)

>>>> IOW I don't think that just because it's Open Source and you *can*
>>>> fix it yourself, that a flippant "Fix it yourself!" response is
>>>> warranted.
>
>>
>> Conversely, neither is "Fix it for me!".


Isn't one of the tenents of Open Source that the developer typically
prides themselves on their code and therefore is quicker to fix bugs and
address problems in their products? You see to me this is one of the
falacys of the Open Source movement - that the producers will care
enough and have enough time to address such problems. As we can see this
is not always the case. From the view point of the consumer Open Source
is often not workable.

--------------070500040905070704010707--