X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:11:34 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin instabilities Message-ID: <20100913201134.GA26594@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20100913192058 DOT GA26408 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:48:49PM +0200, Al wrote: >> It depends on what is meant by "become". ?If it means will there be a concerted >> effort to "harden" Cygwin for a server then the answer is likely "not unless >> someone pays for it." >> >> That points back to paying Red Hat for support. > >I think you use the term support in the wrong field. It is the enduser >who buys support, not the developers. Can't really parse that, especially given that I'm a developer and you're obviously not. >Also the enduser doesn't buy support to make a product more stable. My supposition was that you would purchase the product from Red Hat, run it, report problems, and, gradually, have Red Hat improve "stability". However, you could also purchase a contract with Red Hat with the goal of improving "server stability". I guess the latter is not strictly a "support" contract but I don't see why there has to be minute hair splitting here. >It's works the other way. A stable product is choosen by more >endusers, which in return buy more support. So it's Red Hat, who has >to invest into stability of Cygwin to make it as succesfull as >possible. > >If they don't see a challange in this, than Cygwin is in a kind of >cul-de-sac with Red Hat I guess. Red Hat puts as much money into the product as needed to make a profit. If they are satisfied with their customer base then they have no incentive to do anything to Cygwin. If *you* want to use Cygwin and you have a specific requirement that is not going to be met by the meandering ways of an open source project then you have two options: 1) work on improving the product yourself or 2) pay someone to do it for you. In the Cygwin scenario, the most likely place to find someone to do it for you is Red Hat. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple