X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <48D3B01F DOT 5080200 AT oracle DOT com> <9721D18815A74E3790E86A5BC19A461A AT collinsdirect DOT com> <48D74687 DOT 80002 AT oracle DOT com> <B932A0FA75EB4E3791300D2E33218FE8 AT collinsdirect DOT com> <48D83EF8 DOT 5040401 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <29E315C686404A6D8696F355E283DD56 AT collinsdirect DOT com> <20080923143543 DOT GA6284 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
Subject: RE: [OT] polite response to a polite reponse...
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:26:09 -0400
Message-ID: <B01DE6C1051B4079A793977B52F1BE72@collinsdirect.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <20080923143543.GA6284@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
From: Barry Smith at SourceLink <barrysmith DOT sourcelink AT gmail DOT com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

Christopher:

> Do you know what "FUD" stands for?
Actually, no.  The life span of acronyms is very finite, and 
some of the IBM acronyms that I used from my mainframe days
Back in 82-86 have already been re-assigned to newer concepts.
After this response, I will Google "FUD"... even though I 
assigned no negative meaning to FUD, even though your use 
without a reference to it's expansion wasn't appreciated. 

>>>There is no way a userland app like "run.exe" can "cause" 
>>>a blue screen.  Only something running in kernel space -- like 
>>>windows core ode, or certain device drivers -- can ever do that.
>You can find all manner of things on the "world wide web".  
>That doesn't mean that you should be citing anything you 
>find as definitive.
*grin*
Does that also apply to threads on this list or cygwin-xfree, that 
you were a part of?
*grin*
The thread was from approximately 6 Jun 2006 20:22:02 on a sister list,
original poster was "Chuck McDevitt" <cmcdevitt at greenplum dot com>
at http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2006-06/msg00009.html ,
and the subject was "Cygwin's RUN command and Windows Vista Beta 2".
You replied the first follow-up 
at http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2006-06/msg00010.html .

The discussion is about the CygX RUN.EXE causing a BSOD (I had 
forgotten BSOD until I saw it in your response. Thank you for 
refereshing my memory, and introducing me to even more acronyms).

As a professional programmer, if code that I was involved in 
coding ever produced a BSOD regularly (as it was being reported),
I would be on my way out the door.  Yes, the thread was about
RUN.EXE on a Beta Release of Vista.  Later in the thread, it was
agreed that CygWIN's disclaimer says that CygWIN does not support
"beta software".  While I read many web pages that said that 
CygWIN was not completely Vista-compliant, this was one (more to my 
point) where the problem reported was slough'd off on the operating
System... which CygWIN is not.   

> We tend to react strongly...
Which I interpretted as rude.

At least, we've gotten back to a polite tone of positive conversation 
on the list.

> Windows is far from a perfect OS ...
Agreed, Agreed, Agreed. *smile*
Wasn't there an unofficial Windows Bugs site that
M$ bought and shut down that had over 1000 bugs 
and deficiencies listed?

Idle Thought -- I say we drop-kick WinDoze completely, 
   install Ubuntu, and Ooo 2.3.0, and let everyone 
   think we run Windoze and M$ Office, when we're 
   really running a much more stable and secure 
   platform than Windoze could ever be.  

> ... but running a simple user program should not crash it.  That 
> doesn't mean that there it is impossible for a simple user program 
> to crash it but if Windows crashes, it's a serious Windows bug not 
> a program bug.
That is just a fancy way of passing the buck.
A former president coined the phrase "The buck stops here."

By the same token, the use of commandline tools compiled to run under 
Windows or DOS should not be taboo for a CygWIN e-list or forum.
Just because RAR cannot be compiled to run under cygwin.dll, it can 
be executed from a script written in Bash/csh/ksh/zsh/etc ... and 
therefore should be considerred a workable alternative for use in
CygWIN. 

> Oh, and if you are going to make a point like this then you should 
> post a pointer to the thread where this has been discussed.
Noted, and provided above.

Peace,  

Barry Smith
-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com] On Behalf Of
Christopher Faylor
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:36 AM
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [OT] polite response to rather rude reponse...

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 09:57:32AM -0400, Barry Smith at SourceLink wrote:
>Thank you for the tone.  I'm trying to be helpful.

Do you know what "FUD" stands for?  You seem to think it's profanity.
Spreading FUD is exactly what you are doing.

>>Stop spreading FUD.  There is no way a userland app like "run.exe" can 
>>"cause" a blue screen.  Only something running in kernel space -- like 
>>windows core ode, or certain device drivers -- can ever do that.
>
>Then I guess you don't read the cygwin archives, because that's where I 
>read the entire thread while I was researching RUN/START execution 
>under cygwin.

You can find all manner of things on the "world wide web".  That doesn't
mean that you should be citing anything you find as definitive.

We tend to react strongly to suggestions that Cygwin, which runs in user
space, could cause something like a BSOD.  Windows is far from a perfect OS
but running a simple user program should not crash it.  That doesn't mean
that there it is impossible for a simple user program to crash it but if
Windows crashes, it's a serious Windows bug not a program bug.

Oh, and if you are going to make a point like this then you should post a
pointer to the thread where this has been discussed.  If you do that I'd
wager that in 99% of the cases where an issue like this is discussed in a
Cygwin mailing list someone has made the same points that Chuck and Brian
have made in this thread.

cgf

--
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/


--
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/