From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <cygwin-talk-return-4951-listarch-cygwin-talk=sources.redhat.com@cygwin.com>
Received: (qmail 23967 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2010 15:59:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 23958 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Mar 2010 15:59:54 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from pool-98-110-186-160.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (98.110.186.160)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.83/v0.83-20-g38e4449) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:59:51 +0000
Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) 	by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDCA13C061 	for <cygwin-talk@cygwin.com>; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) 	id 863B72B352; Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:59:49 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:59:00 -0000
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: recvfrom + MSG_PEEK = broken?
Message-ID: <20100323155949.GA27433@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
References: <4BA7085D.3050307@cwilson.fastmail.fm>  <20100322110352.GA32321@calimero.vinschen.de>  <4BA7D40E.5010504@etr-usa.com>  <4BA85E92.5080700@cwilson.fastmail.fm>  <4BA87392.9020900@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BA87392.9020900@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin-talk.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-talk-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-talk@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com>, <http://cygwin.com/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com
Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk@cygwin.com>
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
X-SW-Source: 2010-q1/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 07:53:54AM +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>On 23/03/2010 06:24, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> 
>> Err...sure. "I want to design my networking stack in such a way that it
>> can't support a specific POSIX call, so I'll blame POSIX"
>> 
>> That's not "reasonable" -- that's just arrogance.  AKA Microsoft.
>
>  To be fair to them though, what they lack in modesty, they make up for in
>incompetence(*).

For Microsoft incompetence == innovation.

cgf