X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: MD5s of setup.exe on mirrors. References: <20070514182135 DOT GA6692 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4648B71D DOT 4000804 AT determina DOT com> <31DDB7BE4BF41D4888D41709C476B657068AAFBC AT NIHCESMLBX5 DOT nih DOT gov> From: "Markus E.L." Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 01:31:24 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 "Buchbinder,Barry(NIH/NIAID)[E]" writes: > I understand that you are perturbed that setup does not behave as you > might have expected. Did you actually read what me or Alex wrote? Me seems none of us expressed ANY perturbation with regard to that setup wouldn't behave as expected or advertised. > However, having used cygwin and followed this > mailing list since well before setup was introduced (one downloaded a > single zip file in those days), You know -- I've been around there, too -- only not on this list. > I can tell you that you are not the first person to question this or > that aspect of setup. Let it suffice for me to say that the people > who designed and programmed setup actually use it. They are well > aware of any problems and limitations that setup.exe might have. > They put a lot of thought into its design and a lot of work into its > coding. I would suggest that if they made decisions differently > than you might have, you should consider giving them the benefit of > the doubt and assume that they had good reasons for things to be > arranged as they are. In other words: Do never ask for additional features of point out the weakness of existing solutions (this has not been my issue in this thread, but nonetheless I'm slightly disturbed by the policy you're advocating here). > Otherwise, PTC. Of course. I'll be happy to contribute (still a patch probably fares better if it isn't a feature the original authors and upstream maintainers don't consider undesirable or plainly superfluous). > > This reminds me of a conversation I heard over the weekend. A man > showed a physician (a professor at Johns Hopkins Medical School) a nasty > rash that he had. She told him that it might be caused by an infectious > agent and that he should see his doctor ASAP and possibly get > antibiotics. He started arguing with her about the sensibility of her > diagnosis and advice. When I realized the absurdity of the situation, I > could not refrain from interjecting "Why are you arguing with her!?!" > He responded that he was a lawyer and tended to argue with everyone. > Guess what: I find the story appropriate: I noticed a difference in the md5sums and asked for the reasons or wether anybody noticed. Result: People start arguing with me. Intensively. On slightly related, but not quite the same topic. All lawyers? > If one is really disturbed by these issues, one might look into ways > other than cygwin to get POSIX onto a Windows machine. With other words: If you talk back too much, then go the hell away. Again I find your policy slightly disturbing. I -- for my part -- have only be asking for the -- in the mean time excessively discussed and actually fixed -- difference in the advertised and the actual md5sums. Don't you find it over the top, somehow, to conclude from that, that Cygwin somehow is not for the likes of me? What is the moral in that? "Straight cygwin-ers don't check md5sums, straight cygwin-ers don't talk back, even if being 'misunderstood'"? What happened to free speech? What to the spirit of freedom and openness? It's not that I actually expected _help_ on the md5sum issue: I more expected to be _helpful_ by pointing out a -- admittedly minor -- technical problem, which then could be fixed. If anything (any "observation") I post to the list is met like this, I could as well start with insults right away -- since we end up with "you don't belong here" or "what fool you are" (below) anyway after some mails back- and forward. We could save the time and start with flaming (or denying each others right to post here or to even use cygwin) right away. Or I could skip that step and just blog somewhere else "look what fools they are, haha, the md5sums differ and they haven't noticed for 20 month, haha". Not helpful, right, but since what I write is perceived as an insult to the project or as inappropriate nitpicking anyway, I could just skip the intermediate steps, if I'd be interested in blackening cygwin (which I'm not, actually), right? Since I'm not doing that, I'm probably only craving for the pain. > For the record, here's what I do. Well -- that wasn't the topic with any of us. We know how to run setup (all three ways: From cygwin.com, from the mirrors, from downloaded copies, even from CDs). Do you take us for fools? Regards -- Markus -- 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/