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 Message-ID: <425C5EF4.4050004@etr-usa.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:51:16 -0600 From: Warren Young User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050319 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cygwin-L Subject: Re: maintaining bash References: <79F81D5F4790D344B05F489CE2AC8AB717CF39 AT dubexdc03 DOT dubex DOT net> In-Reply-To: <79F81D5F4790D344B05F489CE2AC8AB717CF39@dubexdc03.dubex.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes David Dindorp wrote: > Jokes aside, I can't respond to the fact that you don't believe > a word I say with anything else than "you obviously don't have > a clue". Chris wasn't saying he didn't believe anything you say. Chris has infinitely more credibility when it comes to judgements of Cygwin complexity than you, and he simply indicated that he believes your claim was wrong. It's unfortunate that you were insulted to have this pointed out to you, but it's true. > I've no idea whether you snort because it's more or it's less complex, It's clearly less complex. Linux is an operating system. Cygwin is a shell on top of an operating system; a rather thick shell in places, but just a shell nevertheless. One might argue that Win32+Cygwin is more complex than Linux, but that's really academic, because the Win32 part isn't open to change. It's a constant in the function, so when differentiating it (i.e. finding the complexity slope) it goes to zero. -- 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/