Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

["Gary R. Van Sickle" <g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>]

> On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 02:40:31AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:29:54PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> ...
> > For the record: I do not give any serious consideration to the two or
> > three email voices here who think they speak from some sort of moral
> > high ground and are compelled to tell me how to communicate.  I do very
> > much appreciate that you haven't lapsed into profanity or sarcasm,
> > however.
> > 
> > 99% of the time when people report a problem they are saying "I have a
> > problem.  I didn't go to too much effort to figure it out.  I didn't do
> > any research about how I should report it.  I want you to help me now."
> > My response to this kind of email is normally to point people to where
> > they need to go to either fix the problem themselves or provide the
> > information that we need to fix the problem.  If people don't like the
> > way I do this, here's something that should be obvious by now: I don't
> > care.  You can take my response or leave it.
> > 
> > In this case, the OP provided a test case, which is rare (and
> > appreciated).  They didn't provide any other details other than that,
> > although he did offer noise information about how he'd rather be using
> > linux and how this was a serious problem.  He also offered a completely
> > uninformed guess.
> > 
> > We normally ask for the guidelines from http://cygwin.com/problems.html,
> > to be followed, however, I know that issues of performance are rarely
> > cut and dry (although knowing the version of cygwin that was exhibiting
> > problems would have been interesting) and so the real key here is to
> > learn enough about the DLL to diagnose the problem.
> > 
> > What you interpret as "snippiness" is just cut and dry advice: If you
> > have a lot of people relying on a product and the product is misbehaving
> > then it makes sense to either purchase support or learn enough about it
> > so that you can support it.  Relying on volunteer email to fix something
> > which is impacting your whole organization is not a reliable way to get
> > "serious problems" fixed.
> > 
> > FWIW, the original message violated many of the tenants of Eric
Raymond's
> > "How to Ask Smart Questions" and I responded just like Eric Raymond
> > predicted.
> > 
> > >There are two ways of seeing it - everybody (or a huge subset of
everybody) 
> > >is wrong and I'm squeaky clean, or yes I could improve my attitude in
how
> > >to deal with people. 
> > 
> > One thing you may notice in my email, is that I normally try to I try to
> > tell people what they need to do to get results.  I don't normally tell
> > people that "everyone" thinks a certain way and I don't often make
> > personal observations about people's character.  I just offer (often
> > terse) advice on what I think someone should do to solve a problem.
> > 
> > As it turns out, for the most part, the way that I conduct myself
> > provides me with the results that I want.  The mailing list is fairly
> > self policing these days.  People who report "cygwin not work" bugs are
> > directed towards the right way to report a problem and, often, their
> > problems are fixed.  People who want to contribute are pointed at
> > cygwin-apps or cygwin-patches and often they end up contributing.
> > 
> > Other people who want to change things but don't have a clear idea about
> > what they want to do and only know that they are angry because I'm not
> > nice to them, and won't give their half-formed thoughts the
> > consideration they know they deserve, eventually go away.  Which is
> > exactly what I want to happen.
> > 
> > This isn't a democracy.  It's just a successful free software project.
> > I (and Corinna) get to make the rules and I (we) get to comport myself
> > how I (we) see fit.  If you don't like that then you can take cygwin
> > source code and make your own fork.
> > 
> > (And, boy will I be fuming.  That should offer some incentive at least)
> > 
> > >I know this cultural issue has deterred me in the past; I keep hoping
that 
> > >things'll change and I (and possibly many others) would change their
mind
> > >and start assisting cygwin.
> > 
> > I have to confess that I'm *glad* that you are deterred.  IIRC, in your
> > communication to the cygwin list you rarely demonstrated a real grasp of
> > the technical issues that you were trying to grapple with.  So, I'm
> > happy not to have to either witness or correct your misperceptions on a
> > regular basis.
> > 
> > Oh, and, there you go again.  First it was "everyone" and then it was
> > "possibly many others".  I believe that this argument style is called
> > "Appeal to Belief".  You've posted relatively rarely to the cygwin list
> > and have never, as I mentioned, and as I recall, demonstrated any
> > particularly strong grasp of either the technical or community aspects
> > of cygwin so I don't accept your premise that you speak for "everybody"
> > or "possibly many others".
> > 
> > Not that it would matter if I did.

> IMO there should be a link to this message from
> http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#WJM.

> Comments?

Well, since Chris just invited me to this list for, I assume, some sort of
"flame-off", I do have one comment.  Chris has already apologized for the
very behavior he's defending in this meandering "manifesto".  So, if it
belongs anywhere (and it doesn't), it belongs under the acronym "CGF",
perhaps as a hyperlink titled "rationalization of his singular behavior".

And as long as I'm here and this is the correct venue for such ponderings
(at least according to Chris today), one has to wonder out loud: Why does
Chris purporedly not care what people think of him, yet go to such great
lengths to rationalize his behavior to those very same people?  And then
apologize for it in yet other posts?

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle