From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9060 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2006 00:02:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 9053 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2006 00:02:34 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (194.72.81.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:02:31 +0000 Received: from mail.artimi.com ([192.168.1.3]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:02:27 +0100 Received: from rainbow ([192.168.1.165]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:02:27 +0100 From: "Dave Korn" To: "Thread TITTTL'd!" Subject: [OT] RE: change in behavior of make from 3.80 to 3.81 Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: <009501c6bffe$18637f10$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <44E0F683.3030203@netacquire.com> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List X-SW-Source: 2006-q3/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 On 14 August 2006 23:18, Joachim Achtzehnter wrote: [ Thread properly TITTTL'd. Bock-bock-bock-baaaaaaawwwk! ] > Dave Korn wrote: > >> Every single day for the past month, we have had at least >> seventy-four[*] identical duplicate redundant reports of this... > > Have you considered that there just might be a significant message hidden > in this from your user community? It's *my* user community? Wow! Does that mean I can take them home and hang them on the wall? However, to answer your question: no. Since every single one of those posts presented itself as "wow, look what I just discovered, what's happening?", and not a single one began with "Even though dos paths are no longer supported here's a reason why I think they should stay", I don't think you can reasonably infer a message from that, except that either an awful lot of people are not in posession of even the most elementary search skills, or that there are an awful lot of people who are so passive-consumption oriented that the thought of trying to look up some information doesn't even occur to them and their first thought is "Get someone else to tell me what to do". Or both. > As somebody who was involved in one of > these earlier threads, let me also mention that to every one of these > seventy-four[*] reports you see on the mailing list there is another user > who expresses his annoyance with these changes in private emails, having > given up on posting such things because of the hostile reaction one gets > these days for expressing views about requirements that certain people here > don't like. Ah, the classic old the-lurkers-support-me-in-email argument. As used by usenet cranks since 1994 to justify posting the same whinge on the topic of "how everyone should do things the way I say they should because it's just obviously right" over and over again, on the grounds that they're only saying it once for themselves, and otherwise speaking up for all the poor little people who are too shy and timid to speak for themselves. Wow, you complete knight in white shining armour, you, you champion of the people. Or not. You may or may not have had conversations in private mail, but that doesn't make you some kind of democratic representative. Get elected, then we'll talk about what your constituency wants. > If this implies that Cygwin maintainers generally "just don't care" about > their users anymore perhaps those users will have to band together some day > and consider creating a Cygwin fork... No, that implies you are fraudulently projecting a single case and assuming it represents an entire set of people in an attempt to construct a specious argument. As I pointed out initially, I am not the make maintainer, nor a redhat employee, nor a cygwin project member. I'm here of my own accord, to get help with my cygwin problems, help other people solve theirs, post the odd bugfix, and so on, and I have no responsibility or duty of care toward *you*, and am fully entitled to get bored with people posting the exact same posts over and over and over and over again. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....