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-Authentication-Warning: snow.cs.uiuc.edu: braz owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 22:21:02 -0600 (CST) From: Rodrigo de Salvo Braz X-X-Sender: braz AT snow DOT cs DOT uiuc DOT edu To: "Gary R. Van Sickle" cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: Obscene content in cygwin file. In-Reply-To: <200501080220.j082KUKh008489@relay1.cso.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: References: <200501080220 DOT j082KUKh008489 AT relay1 DOT cso DOT uiuc DOT edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > A number of people like them. > > A number of people like hard pore cornography too. Cygwin doesn't provide > that, at least not in visual form, at least not that I'm aware of. > > The question stands: What is the reason Cygwin should provide this obscene > content? A number of people feel the dirty limericks are close enough to the purpose of fortune for them to have been included and kept. But nobody thought it would be interesting to include pore cornography in Cygwin (or, for that matter, the full works of Shakespeare). If lots of people wanted that, then it should be done too. It all boils down to cost/benefit, benefits here being how many people find an item good to include and costs being how many don't, and maybe even file size as well. Pore cornography would probably involve lots of negative reaction and large files, and the people who like it wouldn't care since they can easily get it elsewhere. In the limericks case, the -o option seems to have the least cost/benefit ratio. Rodrigo -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/