Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:59:05PM -0500, Gary Van R. Sickle wrote:
>- You didn't respond to my second question.

Nope.  You're right.  I'm going for a personal best in the "Get GVRS to
make repeated observations" category.

I'll consider any demands that I answer about whether I'm going to
single you out for special treatment or entice you into a "flame-off" as
a point.

Just another ten messages to go before I get the new record!

I also have a couple of wagers running on your funny "I know you are but
what am I" responses.  Please don't let me down there.

cgf

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:16 AM
> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> 
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:59:05PM -0500, Gary Van R. Sickle wrote:
> >- You didn't respond to my second question.
> 
> Nope.  You're right.  I'm going for a personal best in the 
> "Get GVRS to make repeated observations" category.
> 

Well, do your worst, but you're never going to beat my "Get CGF to avoid the
issue" record.

> I'll consider any demands that I answer about whether I'm 
> going to single you out for special treatment or entice you 
> into a "flame-off" as a point.
> 

We've covered this one before Chris: When somebody asks you a simple
question, that isn't a "demand".  It's a question.

> Just another ten messages to go before I get the new record!
> 

How many before you deal with your very real behavioral problems here?

> I also have a couple of wagers running on your funny "I know 
> you are but what am I" responses.  Please don't let me down there.
> 

Sorry Chris, I guess I'm going to have to, since that sort of thing tends to
be more your maturity level. 

> cgf

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>Sorry Chris, I guess I'm going to have to, since that sort of thing
>tends to be more your maturity level.

Well, then, you're just a poopie head, aren't you?

cgf

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:15 PM
> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> 
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >Sorry Chris, I guess I'm going to have to, since that sort of thing 
> >tends to be more your maturity level.
> 
> Well, then, you're just a poopie head, aren't you?
> 
> cgf

...and with that, Chris was able to once again avoid dealing with his
behavioral problem.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> Well, do your worst, but you're never going to beat my "Get CGF to avoid the
> issue" record.

Do you comprehend that this is the mailing list for *not* addressing
issues, and hence the only public place appropriate for cgf to reply
to your attacks?

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:14:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >Sorry Chris, I guess I'm going to have to, since that sort of thing
> >tends to be more your maturity level.
> 
> Well, then, you're just a poopie head, aren't you?

LOL.  I'm making popcorn to watch the rest of this with.

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:44:49PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:14:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R.  Van Sickle wrote:
>>>Sorry Chris, I guess I'm going to have to, since that sort of thing
>>>tends to be more your maturity level.
>>
>>Well, then, you're just a poopie head, aren't you?
>
>LOL.  I'm making popcorn to watch the rest of this with.

Yeah, but I get the feeling I'm working alone here.

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:21:39PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
>> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:15 PM
>> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
>> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
>> 
>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> >Sorry Chris, I guess I'm going to have to, since that sort of thing 
>> >tends to be more your maturity level.
>> 
>> Well, then, you're just a poopie head, aren't you?
>
>...and with that, Chris was able to once again avoid dealing with his
>behavioral problem.

You got that right.  Imagine what would happen if we were to get too
deeply into my behavioral problems.  My bed wetting might return and
then I'd have to add my wife's name to the 99.99% of the people in the
cygwin community who hate my guts.

You know I'd expect a lot more sympathy from someone who was sincerely
trying to help...

Btw, I think that's #2 for the term "behavioral problems".  We're
currently stalled at 5 for the term "flame-off".

cgf

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:38 PM
> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> 
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:21:39PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com
> >> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of 
> Christopher Faylor
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:15 PM
> >> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> >> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> >> 
> >> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >> >Sorry Chris, I guess I'm going to have to, since that 
> sort of thing 
> >> >tends to be more your maturity level.
> >> 
> >> Well, then, you're just a poopie head, aren't you?
> >
> >...and with that, Chris was able to once again avoid dealing 
> with his 
> >behavioral problem.
> 
> You got that right.  Imagine what would happen if we were to 
> get too deeply into my behavioral problems.

Better yet, imagine what would happen if you suddenly decided to behave in a
mature and at least semi-professional manner.

>  My bed wetting 
> might return and then I'd have to add my wife's name to the 
> 99.99% of the people in the cygwin community who hate my guts.
> 

I think that one's called a "persecution complex".  Nobody in the Cygwin
community hates you Chris.  I certainly don't.  I just want you to behave
yourself, much like any sixth-grader is able and expected to do.

> You know I'd expect a lot more sympathy from someone who was 
> sincerely trying to help...
> 

You expect sympathy, but refuse to give any?  Interesting.

> Btw, I think that's #2 for the term "behavioral problems".  
> We're currently stalled at 5 for the term "flame-off".
> 

Does counting the number of times I use particular terms or phrases somehow
help you cope with your issues, Chris?  This seems very similar to how you
were (are?) so enamored with the number of hours between the time somebody
posted a question and the time I posted a response.  How deep does this
obsession with the minutiae of my posting habits go Chris?  Perhaps it would
help if you wrote some scripts to automate such tedious bookkeeping.  With
that work off your plate, you'd have a lot more time to devote to worthwhile
endeavors, such as figuring out what's broke in there and fixing it.

> cgf

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Yitzchak 
> Scott-Thoennes
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:44 PM
> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> 
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > Well, do your worst, but you're never going to beat my "Get CGF to 
> > avoid the issue" record.
> 
> Do you comprehend that this is the mailing list for *not* 
> addressing issues, and hence the only public place 
> appropriate for cgf to reply to your attacks?

My "attacks"?  What "attacks"?

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:39:03PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>You got that right.  Imagine what would happen if we were to get too
>>deeply into my behavioral problems.
>
>Better yet, imagine what would happen if you suddenly decided to behave
>in a mature and at least semi-professional manner.

Yeah, there's certainly no fun there.

>>My bed wetting might return and then I'd have to add my wife's name to
>>the 99.99% of the people in the cygwin community who hate my guts.
>
>I think that one's called a "persecution complex".

That's #3 today for the psychological assessments.  That may be a daily
record for you.

>Nobody in the Cygwin community hates you Chris.  I certainly don't.  I
>just want you to behave yourself, much like any sixth-grader is able
>and expected to do.

Gee, I have to stop feeding you straight lines.  You really hit that
one out of the park!

>>You know I'd expect a lot more sympathy from someone who was sincerely
>>trying to help...
>
>You expect sympathy, but refuse to give any?  Interesting.

You really do have my sympathy Gary.  I'm truly sorry that I haven't
made that clear before.  And, believe it or not, I say this with no
humorous intent.  I really mean it.

>>Btw, I think that's #2 for the term "behavioral problems".  We're
>>currently stalled at 5 for the term "flame-off".
>
>Does counting the number of times I use particular terms or phrases
>somehow help you cope with your issues, Chris?

Yes.  It does.  Categorizing someone's needs to compulsively repeat
observations really does help me.  So, I guess you really are helping me
after all.  In your own way.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:40:21AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>So, he (Gary) was assuming that a message that you sent at 9AM EDT on
>Thursday was going to see some sort of harsh response more than twelve
>hours later.

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:39:03PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>This seems very similar to how you were (are?) so enamored with the
>number of hours between the time somebody posted a question and the
>time I posted a response.

cgf

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:12 PM
> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> 

We're still at this, huh Chris?  Ok, whatever you want, but at some point
I'm going to have to start charging.

> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:39:03PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >>You got that right.  Imagine what would happen if we were 
> to get too 
> >>deeply into my behavioral problems.
> >
> >Better yet, imagine what would happen if you suddenly 
> decided to behave 
> >in a mature and at least semi-professional manner.
> 
> Yeah, there's certainly no fun there.
> 

But the point is, then you could then seek other, healthy forms of fun.

> >>My bed wetting might return and then I'd have to add my 
> wife's name to 
> >>the 99.99% of the people in the cygwin community who hate my guts.
> >
> >I think that one's called a "persecution complex".
> 
> That's #3 today for the psychological assessments.  That may 
> be a daily record for you.
> 

Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there.  If you don't like the term
"persecution complex", how would you describe such a thought process then?
I recall nobody ever suggesting that "99.99% of the people in the cygwin
community [..] hate [your] guts".  What I do recall is a significant number
of people taking issue with your abusive behavior on the mailing lists (what
you refer to in your missive as, IIRC, "one or two").  That's not the
persecution you take it to be, that's factual.

> >Nobody in the Cygwin community hates you Chris.  I certainly 
> don't.  I 
> >just want you to behave yourself, much like any sixth-grader is able 
> >and expected to do.
> 
> Gee, I have to stop feeding you straight lines.  You really 
> hit that one out of the park!
> 

Thanks, but let's stay on-topic here.  What is so hard about behaving
yourself?  Virtually everybody else that's ever been involved with Cygwin
seems to be able to do so.  You yourself even seem to be able to do so 90%
of the time, until somebody steps on yet another buried CGF land mine of
inexplicable belligerence.  If you refuse to behave yourself, would you at
least give us the map to those mines?  They seem to be laid out in no
discernable pattern.

Or are even you uncertain where you buried them?

> >>You know I'd expect a lot more sympathy from someone who 
> was sincerely 
> >>trying to help...
> >
> >You expect sympathy, but refuse to give any?  Interesting.
> 
> You really do have my sympathy Gary.  I'm truly sorry that I 
> haven't made that clear before.  And, believe it or not, I 
> say this with no humorous intent.  I really mean it.
> 

Oh Chris, that's not necessary; I've dealt with hides of thicker than yours
many times before; it's really almost second nature to me now.  And to tell
you the truth, if, after all is said and done, your behavior improves
permanently, even by just a small amount, that's really all the thanks I
need.

As to your bemoaning of your perceived lack of sympathy on my part: We're
not to the point in the process where I could offer you any sympathy even if
I wanted to.  All I see is unacceptable behavior from you with no
predictable trigger or known root cause.  Yes, that alone is pitiable, but
I'm not here for the pity party.  My overall goal is to change this
behavior, for the good of the project; my immediate goal is to get you to
admit you have a problem, the necessary first step on your road to recovery.
Once you start down that road, we can talk about sympathy.  Until then, no
amount of sympathy or pity anyone has for you will make any difference.

Allow me a small indulgence: "I'd expect a lot more sympathy from someone
who was sincerely trying to help..."  Chris, that almost sounds like you
recognize there is in fact a problem.  Freudian slip, perhaps?  Or just
wishful thinking on my part?

> >>Btw, I think that's #2 for the term "behavioral problems".  We're 
> >>currently stalled at 5 for the term "flame-off".
> >
> >Does counting the number of times I use particular terms or phrases 
> >somehow help you cope with your issues, Chris?
> 
> Yes.  It does.

How tragic.

>  Categorizing someone's needs to compulsively 
> repeat observations really does help me.

How does that help you Chris?  It doesn't have any outwardly visible effect
on your behavior that I can detect, and I can't quite make the connection
between "word counts" and "rationalization of childish behavior".

>  So, I guess you 
> really are helping me after all.  In your own way.
> 

That's why I'm here.

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:40:21AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >So, he (Gary) was assuming that a message that you sent at 
> 9AM EDT on 
> >Thursday was going to see some sort of harsh response more 
> than twelve 
> >hours later.
> 
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:39:03PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >This seems very similar to how you were (are?) so enamored with the 
> >number of hours between the time somebody posted a question and the 
> >time I posted a response.
> 
> cgf

Close, but no cigar Chris.  I was of course referring to the last time your
poor behavior became an issue, and your response was to belittle my
contributions to the Cygwin project.  Part of that belittlement (and I still
haven't made the connection there) was you stating something to the effect
of 
"it often takes Gary many hours to reply after a question is asked".  You're
better than I am at mining the mailing lists, so I'm sure you'll be able to
produce the correct quote in no time.  I suppose if I feel ambitious enough,
I might do so myself.  But that'll cost you extra.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Linda W]

YST, you are making fun of CFG's pain of loneliness?  *sniff*
CFG just feels 'alone' -- lonely, like all of us at times.

Forgive me if I reveal too much, but perhaps CFG has always
felt alone, outcast, and unwanted by the world, but came
through with all his work on cygwin to "save mankind" (or at
least Win Users from having to learn to live with cmd) despite
the odds and the unappreciative public.  Come on now folks, how
many of us have paid MS money vs. paid Chris?  Face it --
he's a major creative force in cygwin and MS reaps the profits.
Wouldn't you feel the bitter, misunderstood hero in all that?

There's gotta be a movie deal in here somewhere... :-)

Christopher Faylor wrote:

>On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:44:49PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>  
>
>>LOL.  I'm making popcorn to watch the rest of this with.
>>    
>>
>Yeah, but I get the feeling I'm working alone here.
>
>cgf
>  
>

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Charles Wilson]

Linda W wrote:

> There's gotta be a movie deal in here somewhere... :-)

Don't forget the tearjerker part in the middle of the movie, where Our 
Hero is stiffed by the villian, Nasty McEvil, an ebay seller who 
absconded with mucho dinero but never delivered the Portable Supercomputer.

Which threw more bumps in the road for Our Hero, in his quest to Save 
The World thru Open Source.

--
Chuck

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[One Angry User]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Dave Korn's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> ----Original Message----
> >From: One Angry User
> >Sent: 02 June 2005 22:02
>
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor's computer deigned to emit the
> > following stream of bytes:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:53:02PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:28:13PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >>>> Where are the chickens that should be driving you back to the main
> >>>> list?
> >>>
> >>> Oops.  Sorry.
> >>
> >> Actually, this isn't my fault! I think we have to prevail on Dave to
> >> stop his selfish predilection for maintaing a GMT-ish schedule and have
> >> him move to providing 24-hour chicken duty.
> >>
> >> Surely the entire Cygwin project will suffer unless this crucial change
> >> is implemented.
> >
> > What can Dave do that a cron job can't?
> >
> > OAU
>
>   Squash chickens with falling hippos in a GMT-based timezone?

As long as the hippo repository is refreshed regularly, I don't see why
cron can't do that.  It can even add realistic sound effects, on those
machines with good synthesizers.

OAU

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Dave Korn]

----Original Message----
>From: One Angry User
>Sent: 02 June 2005 22:02

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor's computer deigned to emit the
> following stream of bytes: 
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:53:02PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:28:13PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>>>> Where are the chickens that should be driving you back to the main
>>>> list?
>>> 
>>> Oops.  Sorry.
>> 
>> Actually, this isn't my fault! I think we have to prevail on Dave to
>> stop his selfish predilection for maintaing a GMT-ish schedule and have
>> him move to providing 24-hour chicken duty.
>> 
>> Surely the entire Cygwin project will suffer unless this crucial change
>> is implemented.
> 
> What can Dave do that a cron job can't?
> 
> OAU


  Squash chickens with falling hippos in a GMT-based timezone?

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[One Angry User]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:53:02PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:28:13PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >>Where are the chickens that should be driving you back to the main
> >>list?
> >
> >Oops.  Sorry.
>
> Actually, this isn't my fault! I think we have to prevail on Dave to
> stop his selfish predilection for maintaing a GMT-ish schedule and have
> him move to providing 24-hour chicken duty.
>
> Surely the entire Cygwin project will suffer unless this crucial change
> is implemented.

What can Dave do that a cron job can't?

OAU

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:53:02PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:28:13PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>>Where are the chickens that should be driving you back to the main
>>list?
>
>Oops.  Sorry.

Actually, this isn't my fault! I think we have to prevail on Dave to
stop his selfish predilection for maintaing a GMT-ish schedule and have
him move to providing 24-hour chicken duty.

Surely the entire Cygwin project will suffer unless this crucial change
is implemented.

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:28:13PM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:21:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:55:50PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> >On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:39:17PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote:
>> >> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >> >>I am leery of doing things this way since that means that the only
>> >> >>people capable of writing code for cygwin are the people who understand
>> >> >>Nt* calls.  That is a subset of the already small number of people who
>> >> >>understand the UNIX and Windows APIs well enough to work on Cygwin.
>> >> >
>> >> >You mean, like 2?  (Err, 3.  I mean, 4, or maybe 5..)
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm not sure this is a huge problem, you know..
>> >>
>> >> Just take a look at the number of people who have contributed to
>> >> cygwin-patches in the last year or so.  I wouldn't want to scare away
>> >> the people who contribute trivial patches because they can't find any
>> >> documentation on "NtCreateFile".
>> >>
>> >> I suppose *we* could produce documentation on the Nt* functions but
>> >> that's also a support burden.
>> >
>> >If the Cygwin team had to write 9x wrappers for the Nt* functions, some
>> >documentation would have to be part of the wrappers, wouldn't it?
>> 
>> The theory is that Nt knowledgeable pepole could maintain a backend Nt*
>> layer and everyone else could write to the standard Win32 API vs.
>> exposing the Nt layer to everyone and requiring that people figure out
>> the unfamiliar Nt* arguments if/when they want to make changes.
>> 
>> But, Corinna and I haven't finished discussing how this would work yet
>> so there are no guarantees how or if this will happen.
>
>Where are the chickens that should be driving you back to the main list?

Oops.  Sorry.

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[One Angry User]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes' computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:21:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:55:50PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > >On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:39:17PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote:
> > >> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >> >>I am leery of doing things this way since that means that the only
> > >> >>people capable of writing code for cygwin are the people who understand
> > >> >>Nt* calls.  That is a subset of the already small number of people who
> > >> >>understand the UNIX and Windows APIs well enough to work on Cygwin.
> > >> >
> > >> >You mean, like 2?  (Err, 3.  I mean, 4, or maybe 5..)
> > >> >
> > >> >I'm not sure this is a huge problem, you know..
> > >>
> > >> Just take a look at the number of people who have contributed to
> > >> cygwin-patches in the last year or so.  I wouldn't want to scare away
> > >> the people who contribute trivial patches because they can't find any
> > >> documentation on "NtCreateFile".
> > >>
> > >> I suppose *we* could produce documentation on the Nt* functions but
> > >> that's also a support burden.
> > >
> > >If the Cygwin team had to write 9x wrappers for the Nt* functions, some
> > >documentation would have to be part of the wrappers, wouldn't it?
> >
> > The theory is that Nt knowledgeable pepole could maintain a backend Nt*
> > layer and everyone else could write to the standard Win32 API vs.
> > exposing the Nt layer to everyone and requiring that people figure out
> > the unfamiliar Nt* arguments if/when they want to make changes.
> >
> > But, Corinna and I haven't finished discussing how this would work yet
> > so there are no guarantees how or if this will happen.
>
> Where are the chickens that should be driving you back to the main list?

Squashed by falling hippos.

OAU

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 04:21:33PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:55:50PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:39:17PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote:
> >> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >>I am leery of doing things this way since that means that the only
> >> >>people capable of writing code for cygwin are the people who understand
> >> >>Nt* calls.  That is a subset of the already small number of people who
> >> >>understand the UNIX and Windows APIs well enough to work on Cygwin.
> >> >
> >> >You mean, like 2?  (Err, 3.  I mean, 4, or maybe 5..)
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure this is a huge problem, you know..
> >>
> >> Just take a look at the number of people who have contributed to
> >> cygwin-patches in the last year or so.  I wouldn't want to scare away
> >> the people who contribute trivial patches because they can't find any
> >> documentation on "NtCreateFile".
> >>
> >> I suppose *we* could produce documentation on the Nt* functions but
> >> that's also a support burden.
> >
> >If the Cygwin team had to write 9x wrappers for the Nt* functions, some
> >documentation would have to be part of the wrappers, wouldn't it?
> 
> The theory is that Nt knowledgeable pepole could maintain a backend Nt*
> layer and everyone else could write to the standard Win32 API vs.
> exposing the Nt layer to everyone and requiring that people figure out
> the unfamiliar Nt* arguments if/when they want to make changes.
> 
> But, Corinna and I haven't finished discussing how this would work yet
> so there are no guarantees how or if this will happen.

Where are the chickens that should be driving you back to the main list?

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:55:50PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:39:17PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote:
>> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >>I am leery of doing things this way since that means that the only
>> >>people capable of writing code for cygwin are the people who understand
>> >>Nt* calls.  That is a subset of the already small number of people who
>> >>understand the UNIX and Windows APIs well enough to work on Cygwin.
>> >
>> >You mean, like 2?  (Err, 3.  I mean, 4, or maybe 5..)
>> >
>> >I'm not sure this is a huge problem, you know..
>>
>> Just take a look at the number of people who have contributed to
>> cygwin-patches in the last year or so.  I wouldn't want to scare away
>> the people who contribute trivial patches because they can't find any
>> documentation on "NtCreateFile".
>>
>> I suppose *we* could produce documentation on the Nt* functions but
>> that's also a support burden.
>
>If the Cygwin team had to write 9x wrappers for the Nt* functions, some
>documentation would have to be part of the wrappers, wouldn't it?

The theory is that Nt knowledgeable pepole could maintain a backend Nt*
layer and everyone else could write to the standard Win32 API vs.
exposing the Nt layer to everyone and requiring that people figure out
the unfamiliar Nt* arguments if/when they want to make changes.

But, Corinna and I haven't finished discussing how this would work yet
so there are no guarantees how or if this will happen.

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:39:17PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>I am leery of doing things this way since that means that the only
> >>people capable of writing code for cygwin are the people who understand
> >>Nt* calls.  That is a subset of the already small number of people who
> >>understand the UNIX and Windows APIs well enough to work on Cygwin.
> >
> >You mean, like 2?  (Err, 3.  I mean, 4, or maybe 5..)
> >
> >I'm not sure this is a huge problem, you know..
>
> Just take a look at the number of people who have contributed to
> cygwin-patches in the last year or so.  I wouldn't want to scare away
> the people who contribute trivial patches because they can't find any
> documentation on "NtCreateFile".
>
> I suppose *we* could produce documentation on the Nt* functions but
> that's also a support burden.

If the Cygwin team had to write 9x wrappers for the Nt* functions, some
documentation would have to be part of the wrappers, wouldn't it?  Even if
it's pointers to MSDN in the comments before those functions, that would
be pretty helpful.

> OTOH, "leery" doesn't mean "it will never happen".  This is just one
> of many things to consider when making a major change like this.

It's a tempting change, though... :-)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:39:17PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I am leery of doing things this way since that means that the only
>>people capable of writing code for cygwin are the people who understand
>>Nt* calls.  That is a subset of the already small number of people who
>>understand the UNIX and Windows APIs well enough to work on Cygwin.
>
>You mean, like 2?  (Err, 3.  I mean, 4, or maybe 5..)
>
>I'm not sure this is a huge problem, you know..

Just take a look at the number of people who have contributed to
cygwin-patches in the last year or so.  I wouldn't want to scare away
the people who contribute trivial patches because they can't find any
documentation on "NtCreateFile".

I suppose *we* could produce documentation on the Nt* functions but
that's also a support burden.

OTOH, "leery" doesn't mean "it will never happen".  This is just one
of many things to consider when making a major change like this.

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Shankar Unni]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I am leery of doing things this way since that means that the only people
> capable of writing code for cygwin are the people who understand Nt* calls.
 > That is a subset of the already small number of people who
> understand the UNIX and Windows APIs well enough to work on Cygwin.

You mean, like 2? (Err, 3. I mean, 4, or maybe 5..)

I'm not sure this is a huge problem, you know..

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Dave Korn]

----Original Message----
>From: Igor Pechtchanski
>Sent: 02 June 2005 17:14

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:14:05PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> ----Original Message----
>>>> From: Fred Kulack
>>>> Sent: 02 June 2005 13:58
>>> 
>>>> I think I'm dumber for having been following this thread.  Must stop...
>>>> Don't read...  No...  Can't....  resist....  reading....  more...
>>>> Arrrrrrggghhhhh.... 
>>>> 
>>>> As a reader and very infrequent poster, perhaps I'm just sticking my
>>>> nose where it doesn't belong by posting to this thread.  Oh...  I guess
>>>> I don't care.  8-)
>>> 
>>> People who stick their noses where they don't belong sometimes find
>>> they get bitten off by an enraged hippo.  So just be careful!
>> 
>> Finally, someone has injected a note of sanity into this discussion.
> 
> Speaking of notes and sanity, what note would the air whistling around a
> falling hippo make?  It will definitely be higher than the middle C...
> Or could it be a chord?..  Any musically inclined people here who care to
> comment?
> 	Igor



  I can't answer that, but do you know what chord you get if you drop a
hippo down a mineshaft?








































      ...   A Flat Minor!





    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:14:05PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >----Original Message----
> >>From: Fred Kulack
> >>Sent: 02 June 2005 13:58
> >
> >>I think I'm dumber for having been following this thread.  Must stop...
> >>Don't read...  No...  Can't....  resist....  reading....  more...
> >>Arrrrrrggghhhhh....
> >>
> >>As a reader and very infrequent poster, perhaps I'm just sticking my
> >>nose where it doesn't belong by posting to this thread.  Oh...  I guess
> >>I don't care.  8-)
> >
> >People who stick their noses where they don't belong sometimes find
> >they get bitten off by an enraged hippo.  So just be careful!
>
> Finally, someone has injected a note of sanity into this discussion.

Speaking of notes and sanity, what note would the air whistling around a
falling hippo make?  It will definitely be higher than the middle C...
Or could it be a chord?..  Any musically inclined people here who care to
comment?
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Fred Kulack wrote:

> I think I'm dumber for having been following this thread.
> Must stop... Don't read... No... Can't.... resist.... reading.... more...
> Arrrrrrggghhhhh....
>
> As a reader and very infrequent poster, perhaps I'm just sticking my
> nose where it doesn't belong by posting to this thread. Oh... I guess I
> don't care.
> 8-)

That's the spirit! :-)
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:56:10PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>Why are you so obsessed with my obsession with cgf's behavior?  ;-)

And, I think that says it all.

Creepy isn't it?  Brrr....

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:14:05PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>----Original Message----
>>From: Fred Kulack
>>Sent: 02 June 2005 13:58
>
>>I think I'm dumber for having been following this thread.  Must stop...
>>Don't read...  No...  Can't....  resist....  reading....  more...
>>Arrrrrrggghhhhh....
>>
>>As a reader and very infrequent poster, perhaps I'm just sticking my
>>nose where it doesn't belong by posting to this thread.  Oh...  I guess
>>I don't care.  8-)
>
>People who stick their noses where they don't belong sometimes find
>they get bitten off by an enraged hippo.  So just be careful!

Finally, someone has injected a note of sanity into this discussion.

cgf

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Dave Korn]

----Original Message----
>From: Fred Kulack
>Sent: 02 June 2005 13:58

> I think I'm dumber for having been following this thread.
> Must stop... Don't read... No... Can't.... resist.... reading.... more...
> Arrrrrrggghhhhh....
> 
> As a reader and very infrequent poster, perhaps I'm just sticking my nose
> where
> it doesn't belong by posting to this thread. Oh... I guess I don't care.
> 8-)


  People who stick their noses where they don't belong sometimes find they
get bitten off by an enraged hippo.  So just be careful!


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Fred Kulack]

I think I'm dumber for having been following this thread. 
Must stop... Don't read... No... Can't.... resist.... reading.... more... 
Arrrrrrggghhhhh....

As a reader and very infrequent poster, perhaps I'm just sticking my nose 
where 
it doesn't belong by posting to this thread. Oh... I guess I don't care. 
8-)

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Carlo Florendo]

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>Carlo Florendo wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Why are you so obsessed with cgf's behaviour?   ;)
>>
>>
>>--
>>Carlo Florendo
>>Astra Philippines Inc.
>>www.astra.ph
>>
>>    
>>
>
>As I've stated before, I take Chris to task over this particular aspect of
>his behavior because I believe it to be detrimental to the Cygwin project.
>
>Why are you so obsessed with my obsession with cgf's behavior? ;-)
>
>  
>

For fun.  Plain, simple, internet fun.  Don't you realize that those 
subscribed to cygwin-talk are probably having fun reading all these 
mailing list entertainment.  I can't wait for the next posts of all 
those cygwin gurus and all those who'd want to react. 

If we keep this discussion long enough, this will probably be the 
longest thread of messages of off-topic messages on an off-topic mailing 
list.  (i.e. off-topic cygwin postings is on-topic on cygwin-talk, the 
off-topic cygwin list.)

Then, this thread will be in the guiness book of records.  And you'll be 
famous.  That would be great, wouldn't it?

-- 
Carlo Florendo
Astra Philippines Inc.
www.astra.ph

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Carlo Florendo]

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>Carlo Florendo wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Can't you teach your mailer to behave?  
>>http://www.cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR
>>This has been told to you, IIRC, many times.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Carlos, the list's own email adresses themselves are of little use to a
>harvester, since, if they are going to be harvesting from a list, they sort
>of by definition already have the list's own address.  
>

Right.  But the point is to CYMTNQREAIYR so that in the future,  REA's 
are not printed at all, regardless of what the REA is.

>And if they didn't
>already have it, they'd get it from here:
>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/.  However, I'll get rid of them
>just this once per your request (though of course I can't remove it from
>that web page, making such an action fairly meaningless).  So don't say I
>never did nothin' for ya.
>
>[snip]
>  
>
>>>In his latest statement on the topic,
>>>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00279.html, he mentions 
>>>nothing about "fun".
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes, he doesn't.
>>    
>>
>
>QED.
>
>[snip]
>  
>
>>>Nobody is discussing such posts, not me anyway.  Why do you 
>>>      
>>>
>>and some others
>>    
>>
>>>(one other?) believe any of this chronic issue is related to 
>>>      
>>>
>>pointing people
>>    
>>
>>>to web pages?  I truly don't follow.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>You know why?  Because it's fun.  :)
>>
>>And it helps people to help themselves.  If you don't 
>>understand that, I 
>>can't imagine what you can?
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I think I've just been maligned.
>
>  
>

Ok then.  I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to malign you.  

I have to admit though, that this thread is getting more enjoyable.  
Thank you Gary  for making it really enjoyable. Thanks for cgf too for 
providing cygwin-talk where all these can be talked about as on-topic.

Best Regards,

Carlo

-- 
Carlo Florendo
Astra Philippines Inc.
www.astra.ph

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

Carlo Florendo wrote:

> 
> Why are you so obsessed with cgf's behaviour?   ;)
> 
> 
> --
> Carlo Florendo
> Astra Philippines Inc.
> www.astra.ph
> 

As I've stated before, I take Chris to task over this particular aspect of
his behavior because I believe it to be detrimental to the Cygwin project.

Why are you so obsessed with my obsession with cgf's behavior? ;-)

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

Carlo Florendo wrote:

> 
> Can't you teach your mailer to behave?  
> http://www.cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR
> This has been told to you, IIRC, many times.
> 

Carlos, the list's own email adresses themselves are of little use to a
harvester, since, if they are going to be harvesting from a list, they sort
of by definition already have the list's own address.  And if they didn't
already have it, they'd get it from here:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/.  However, I'll get rid of them
just this once per your request (though of course I can't remove it from
that web page, making such an action fairly meaningless).  So don't say I
never did nothin' for ya.

[snip]
> >
> >In his latest statement on the topic,
> >http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00279.html, he mentions 
> >nothing about "fun".
> >
> 
> Yes, he doesn't.

QED.

[snip]
> >
> >Nobody is discussing such posts, not me anyway.  Why do you 
> and some others
> >(one other?) believe any of this chronic issue is related to 
> pointing people
> >to web pages?  I truly don't follow.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> You know why?  Because it's fun.  :)
> 
> And it helps people to help themselves.  If you don't 
> understand that, I 
> can't imagine what you can?
> 

I think I've just been maligned.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Carlo Florendo]

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>    
>>
>Does counting the number of times I use particular terms or phrases somehow
>help you cope with your issues, Chris?  This seems very similar to how you
>were (are?) so enamored with the number of hours between the time somebody
>posted a question and the time I posted a response.  How deep does this
>obsession with the minutiae of my posting habits go Chris?  Perhaps it would
>help if you wrote some scripts to automate such tedious bookkeeping.  With
>that work off your plate, you'd have a lot more time to devote to worthwhile
>endeavors, such as figuring out what's broke in there and fixing it.
>
>  
>

Why are you so obsessed with cgf's behaviour?   ;)


-- 
Carlo Florendo
Astra Philippines Inc.
www.astra.ph

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Carlo Florendo]

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cygwin-talk-owner@WHAT_MAILER___ARGHHHHHHH.. 
>>[mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@ZZZZZZZZZZ] On Behalf Of Carlo Florendo
>>    
>>

Can't you teach your mailer to behave?  
http://www.cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR
This has been told to you, IIRC, many times.

>>Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:08 PM
>>To: The Cygwin-Talk Maligning List
>>Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
>>    
>>
>[snip]
>  
>
>>What a way to start this day!  Ladies and gentemen, here we 
>>have the live episode of the ranting, maligning,
>>    
>>
>
>Again I ask, what "maligning" would you and others be referring to?  If I
>have in any way "maligned" anybody, I demand the opportunity to "un-malign"
>them.
> 
>  
>
>>rants-against-abusive-behaviour-discussions on the 
>>cygwin-talk list.    
>>Aside from Lionel B.,  I would have to declare that this 
>>thread is again getting to be enjoyable!
>>
>>CGF *doesn't* need to change.  IIRC, cgf says he writes the way he 
>>writes because it's fun.
>>    
>>
>
>In his latest statement on the topic,
>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00279.html, he mentions nothing
>about "fun".  
>

Yes, he doesn't.  However, in a related posting--in a reply to one of 
your mails, he says all these is for fun.
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2005-05/msg00007.html

>"As it turns out, for the most part, the way that I conduct myself provides
>me with the results that I want.  [...] 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."
>
>Frankly, I'd prefer the "fun" explanation.  Unfortunately, I've been around
>long enough that I can believe neither.
>
>  
>
>>  I really still can't believe that 
>>some take 
>>the cygwin meanness very seriously  to the point of being 
>>concerned about the behaviour of cgf.  Really!
>>
>>The cygwin list has become a list where where the cygwin 
>>gurus have set the culture of letting people learn to help 
>>themselves first before anything else.  That's the reason for 
>>the thousands of times when postings are answered with "go to 
>>"http://cygwin.com/problems.html" or "goto 
>>http://cygwin.com/lists.html", or, with a pointer to the 
>>correct list.
>>    
>>
>
>Nobody is discussing such posts, not me anyway.  Why do you and some others
>(one other?) believe any of this chronic issue is related to pointing people
>to web pages?  I truly don't follow.
>
>  
>

You know why?  Because it's fun.  :)

And it helps people to help themselves.  If you don't understand that, I 
can't imagine what you can?


>Since the rest of your post is based on this erroneous premise, I shall
>refrain from further comment.
>
>  
>

Great!  IMHO, It's best for everyone to stop ranting about cgf's 
behavior--or style.  He's mean.  So, what?  You care?  I don't. If 
others do, that's their problem.  They will be wasting their time caring 
about his style.

Best Regards,

Carlo

-- 
Carlo Florendo
Astra Philippines Inc.
www.astra.ph

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Carlo Florendo
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:08 PM
> To: The Cygwin-Talk Maligning List
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
[snip]
> 
> What a way to start this day!  Ladies and gentemen, here we 
> have the live episode of the ranting, maligning,

Again I ask, what "maligning" would you and others be referring to?  If I
have in any way "maligned" anybody, I demand the opportunity to "un-malign"
them.
 
> rants-against-abusive-behaviour-discussions on the 
> cygwin-talk list.    
> Aside from Lionel B.,  I would have to declare that this 
> thread is again getting to be enjoyable!
> 
> CGF *doesn't* need to change.  IIRC, cgf says he writes the way he 
> writes because it's fun.

In his latest statement on the topic,
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00279.html, he mentions nothing
about "fun".  In fact he claims there's a sort of 'grand design' to his
antisocial behavior:

"As it turns out, for the most part, the way that I conduct myself provides
me with the results that I want.  [...] 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."

Frankly, I'd prefer the "fun" explanation.  Unfortunately, I've been around
long enough that I can believe neither.

>   I really still can't believe that 
> some take 
> the cygwin meanness very seriously  to the point of being 
> concerned about the behaviour of cgf.  Really!
> 
> The cygwin list has become a list where where the cygwin 
> gurus have set the culture of letting people learn to help 
> themselves first before anything else.  That's the reason for 
> the thousands of times when postings are answered with "go to 
> "http://cygwin.com/problems.html" or "goto 
> http://cygwin.com/lists.html", or, with a pointer to the 
> correct list.

Nobody is discussing such posts, not me anyway.  Why do you and some others
(one other?) believe any of this chronic issue is related to pointing people
to web pages?  I truly don't follow.

Since the rest of your post is based on this erroneous premise, I shall
refrain from further comment.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Carlo Florendo]

Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>    
>>
<snip>

>Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there.  If you don't like the term
>"persecution complex", how would you describe such a thought process then?
>I recall nobody ever suggesting that "99.99% of the people in the cygwin
>community [..] hate [your] guts".  What I do recall is a significant number
>of people taking issue with your abusive behavior on the mailing lists (what
>you refer to in your missive as, IIRC, "one or two").  That's not the
>persecution you take it to be, that's factual.
>
>  
>

What a way to start this day!  Ladies and gentemen, here we have the 
live episode of the ranting, maligning, 
rants-against-abusive-behaviour-discussions on the cygwin-talk list.    
Aside from Lionel B.,  I would have to declare that this thread is again 
getting to be enjoyable!

CGF *doesn't* need to change.  IIRC, cgf says he writes the way he 
writes because it's fun.   I really still can't believe that some take 
the cygwin meanness very seriously  to the point of being concerned 
about the behaviour of cgf.  Really!

The cygwin list has become a list where where the cygwin gurus have set 
the culture of letting people learn to help themselves first before 
anything else.  That's the reason for the thousands of times when 
postings are answered with "go to "http://cygwin.com/problems.html" or 
"goto http://cygwin.com/lists.html", or, with a pointer to the correct 
list.  In that way, people are taught to help themselves first before 
wasting other people's time.  You've all known that adage "Give a man a 
fish! You feed him for a day.  Teach the man to fish!  You feed him for 
life."   Teaching men to fish, IMHO, is what cgf has been trying to do.  
He has his own style of doing it and his style is mean.    But this 
meanness is just a matter of  style.  It is not evil.  It would take a 
certain maturity level on the cygwin list  (e.g. someone probably needs 
to have been subscribed to the list for a year or so)  for anyone to 
understand that this meanness is style and a humorous style and not a 
lack maturity .  

If someone does not see this meanness as a unique way of being humorous, 
IMHO, this someone has not been mature enough to understood the cygwin 
mailing list.  Thus, if all these 
cgf-is-abusive-and-has-to-change-blah-blah-blah  talk is taken very 
seriously, I must concede that all this is in the mind. 

And, if anyone really really takes the meannness seriously, he has to 
probably step back and get a good meta view of the whole issue ;)

Hmmm, if I took all these seriously, I would say:

CGF, YOU'RE MEAN, YOU'RE NUTS, YOU GOTTA CHANGE.  WHY DO YOU ACT THAT 
WAY?  WHY WHY WHY?  CAN'T YOU BEHAVE FOR ONCE IN THIS  FREAKING MAILING 
LIST? AREN'T YOU CONCERNED THAT PEOPLE ARE GETTING CONCERNED WITH YOUR 
BEHAVIOUR????  WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER NOW AND AND NOT AVOID THE ISSUE.  
YOU ARE AFRAID, YOU CGF. AREN'T YOU?  I GUESS YOU ARE.  CGF, 
EVILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, WEEEEEEEEEEEE,  WE BETTER GET SCARED!!!!!!!!.  CGF 
IS HERE TO HAUNT US FOEVER........WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH......


Best Regards,

Carlo







-- 
Carlo Florendo
Astra Philippines Inc.
www.astra.ph

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[One Angry User]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Gary R. Van Sickle's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> We're still at this, huh Chris?  Ok, whatever you want, but at some point
> I'm going to have to start charging.

For those who weren't aware of it, there are multiple possible meanings
for the word "charging"... :-)  Hence the Reply-To.

OAU

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

(BTW: Who's being maligned here?  I know Chris has maligned me and many
others on the other lists; perhaps they should get a "Reply-To" change as
well.)

[snip]
> > >
> > >You expect sympathy, but refuse to give any?  Interesting.
> > 
> > You really do have my sympathy Gary.  I'm truly sorry that I 
> > haven't made that clear before.  And, believe it or not, I 
> > say this with no humorous intent.  I really mean it.
> > 
> 
> Oh Chris, that's not necessary; I've dealt with hides of 
> thicker than yours
^^^
Sorry, should be "...hides of denial thicker than yours...".

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 12:17:51PM -0400, One Angry User wrote:
>Hey, at least one person here seems to be openly enjoying this exchange...
>And even he reads via Gmane...

FWIW, I took the advice of properly labelling the list in the Reply-To,
as per Lionel's recommendation.

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[One Angry User]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Lionel B's computer deigned to emit the following stream of bytes:

> Dave Korn wrote:
> > ----Original Message----
> >> From: Gary R. Van Sickle
> >> Sent: 31 May 2005 21:22
> >
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: cygwin-talk-owner LOL cygwin DOOP com
> >>> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner BOOM cygwin KAPOW com] On Behalf Of
> >>> Christopher Faylor
> >
> >   You're slipping on a fairly regular basis Gary,
> > http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PCFYFMYAKB
> >
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:15 PM
> >>> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> >>> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >>>> Sorry Chris, I guess I'm going to have to, since that sort of thing
> >>>> tends to be more your maturity level.
> >>>
> >>> Well, then, you're just a poopie head, aren't you?
> >>>
> >>> cgf
> >>
> >> ...and with that, Chris was able to once again avoid dealing with his
> >> behavioral problem.
> >
> >   Look!
> >
> >   Up there in the mailing list!
>
> Shouldn't cygwin-talk now be officially described as a "malign list"?
>
> Or is that "maligning list"?
>
> (Or possibly, for pitiable via-OE-via-Gmane readers like myself,
> "mis-aligning list"?)

Hey, at least one person here seems to be openly enjoying this exchange...
And even he reads via Gmane...

OAU

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Lionel B]

Dave Korn wrote:
> ----Original Message----
>> From: Gary R. Van Sickle
>> Sent: 31 May 2005 21:22
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cygwin-talk-owner LOL cygwin DOOP com
>>> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner BOOM cygwin KAPOW com] On Behalf Of
>>> Christopher Faylor 
> 
>   You're slipping on a fairly regular basis Gary,
> http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PCFYFMYAKB
> 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:15 PM
>>> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
>>> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>>> Sorry Chris, I guess I'm going to have to, since that sort of thing
>>>> tends to be more your maturity level.
>>> 
>>> Well, then, you're just a poopie head, aren't you?
>>> 
>>> cgf
>> 
>> ...and with that, Chris was able to once again avoid dealing with his
>> behavioral problem.
> 
>   Look!
> 
>   Up there in the mailing list!

Shouldn't cygwin-talk now be officially described as a "malign list"?

Or is that "maligning list"?

(Or possibly, for pitiable via-OE-via-Gmane readers like myself, "mis-aligning list"?)

-- 
Lionel B

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:15:48PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
> > 
> > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:58:14PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > [summary: blather blather]
> > 
> > Whatever.
> > 
> 
> Touche.

That's the spirit!

> > > But the topic of this sub-thread here is OCLA hyperlinks.  
> > What do you 
> > > think of my idea that this really belongs as a link under 
> > the "CGF" heading?
> > 
> > I think it doesn't fit there; that's why I suggested WJM.
> > Something like:
> > 
> > <a href="http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00279.html">
> > What mean means.</a>
> 
> "WJM" has little to do with Chris' antisocial behavior nor his
> rationalizations of it.  Again, should you read Chris' rant, you'll find
> that it is nothing more than that.  He admits as much himself:
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00287.html

Where on earth in that message do you see any such thing?

Snip stuff about "antisocial behavior", "flip out on you",
"rationalize".

I think I've figured it out; perhaps you just don't realize that email
doesn't contain the overtones possible in speech, so you are taking
the bare words others write and imagining up all kinds of stuff to
distort their simple meaning.

There was no flip out.  There was no rant.  Really.  They exist only
in your mind.

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:07:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> ----Original Message----
> >From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
> >Sent: 31 May 2005 18:55
> 
> > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:03PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >>   Hang on a minute, I just realised an even bigger problem with your
> >> statement:  You think I might be telling people to go looking for _fish_
> >> on Usenet?
> > 
> > http://abevigoda.com/
> 
> Cool![*]  Thank you for helping me discover
> 
> http://alienlovespredator.com/index.php?id=1
> 
> 
>     cheers,
>       DaveK
> 
> [*]PS  What's the connection between Abe Vigoda, fish, and Usenet?[**]

Well, it isn't the Big 8, but at least there's Fish on gmane now.
 
> [**]PS2  I know, of course.  I'm just testing you ....

If you didn't, it would be easily enough remedied by google or
late night reruns.

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Dave Korn
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:02 PM
> To: 'wtf died and made you class monitor anyway?'

Nice.

[snip]
> 
>   Look!  
> 
>   Up there in the mailing list!  
> 
>   Is it a bird?
> 
>   Is it a plane?
> 
>   Is it Steve Boursy and teh Freedom Kaniggets?
> 
>   Is it a 
> self-appointed-volunteer-social-worker-cum-armchair-psychologist?
> 

I agree David, it is pretty sad that a software project requires a staff
psychologist.  But until such time as another Cygwin collection is taken up
and such a professional can be retained, I shall do what I can for Chris.  I
hope you will too.

>   Hooray!  Gary is hear to safe us all!!!1!  Oh woe oh wot 
> would we do without Gary to proteck us from teh wicked cgf 
> and his appalling bad manners!  Thank yuo thank yuo oh thank 
> you Garreeeeeee!!!!2!
> 

I'm afraid I'll have to wait to accept your thanks until such time as Chris
shows some improvement.  Your recognition of my efforts in this thankless
task is appreciated though.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Yitzchak 
> Scott-Thoennes
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:43 PM
> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> 
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:58:14PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> [summary: blather blather]
> 
> Whatever.
> 

Touche.

> > But the topic of this sub-thread here is OCLA hyperlinks.  
> What do you 
> > think of my idea that this really belongs as a link under 
> the "CGF" heading?
> 
> I think it doesn't fit there; that's why I suggested WJM.
> Something like:
> 
> <a href="http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00279.html">
> What mean means.</a>

"WJM" has little to do with Chris' antisocial behavior nor his
rationalizations of it.  Again, should you read Chris' rant, you'll find
that it is nothing more than that.  He admits as much himself:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00287.html

However, I have an even better idea.  Long ago, Chris (I assume it was him)
added the lengthy disclaimer text ("I have a question! [...]") at the top of
http://cygwin.com/lists.html (That was my idea by the way, in the interest
of keeping Chris' blood pressure under control).  Perhaps this text should
be replaced with Chris' missive, something like this:

"
I have a question! Should I just send it to one (or all) of the mailing
lists below?

That depends.  First read this: <a
href="http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00279.html"> Chris on
Chris.</a>.  Ask enough questions, or the wrong question, or the right
question on the wrong day, or don't explicitly tell Chris that you're not a
for-profit company, or offer to help, or don't offer to help, or ask if
there's anything you can do to help, or actually do help, and Chris will
flip out on you in the manner he describes in that missive.  If called on it
enough, he'll then rationalize it as he does in that self-same missive.  The
rest of the community pretty much behaves themselves.  If this sort of
atmosphere appeals to you, here's the links:

<mailing list archive links etc here>
"

That would seem to cover all bases, no?  It fully explains what you believe
to be the "spirit" of "WJM", it's way shorter than the current disclaimer,
hence everybody wins.  Well, for some suitable definition of "wins" anyway.
And "everybody".

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
 

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Dave Korn]

----Original Message----
>From: Gary R. Van Sickle
>Sent: 31 May 2005 21:22

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cygwin-talk-owner LOL cygwin DOOP com
>> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner BOOM cygwin KAPOW com] On Behalf Of Christopher
Faylor

  You're slipping on a fairly regular basis Gary,
http://cygwin.com/acronyms#PCFYFMYAKB

>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:15 PM
>> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
>> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
>> 
>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:47:01PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>>> Sorry Chris, I guess I'm going to have to, since that sort of thing
>>> tends to be more your maturity level.
>> 
>> Well, then, you're just a poopie head, aren't you?
>> 
>> cgf
> 
> ...and with that, Chris was able to once again avoid dealing with his
> behavioral problem.


  Look!  

  Up there in the mailing list!  

  Is it a bird?

  Is it a plane?

  Is it Steve Boursy and teh Freedom Kaniggets?

  Is it a self-appointed-volunteer-social-worker-cum-armchair-psychologist?

  Hooray!  Gary is hear to safe us all!!!1!  Oh woe oh wot would we do
without Gary to proteck us from teh wicked cgf and his appalling bad
manners!  Thank yuo thank yuo oh thank you Garreeeeeee!!!!2!



    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:58:14PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
[summary: blather blather]

Whatever.

> But the topic of this sub-thread here is OCLA hyperlinks.  What do you think
> of my idea that this really belongs as a link under the "CGF" heading?

I think it doesn't fit there; that's why I suggested WJM.
Something like:

<a href="http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00279.html">
What mean means.</a>

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Yitzchak 
> Scott-Thoennes
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:12 AM
> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> 
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:48:30PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > > 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".
> 
> I don't think you understand what cgf was apologizing about.
> 

Yes, I do.  He doesn't.

> And I'm not sure where you get the "manifesto" or "rationalization"
> from.

You read the missive, right?  Allow me to summarize: "My copious
contributions to the Cygwin project are my license to behave as childishly
and abusively as I see fit."  That's what's called rationalization.

>  I thought it was neat that he could summarize so well 
> his tendency to direct people toward acting in their own best 
> interests, which is what is jokingly referred to as being 
> "mean".

I thought the cool part was where he said, "Jeez, I *am* an inexplicable
jerk way too often.  I'm going to change my behavior so I don't have to
apologize to people so often."

Oh, right, he didn't say that.

>  I understand that you don't get the joke, but do you 
> have to show so repetitively that you don't get it?

Why would Chris feel the need to apologize for a "joke"?

But the topic of this sub-thread here is OCLA hyperlinks.  What do you think
of my idea that this really belongs as a link under the "CGF" heading?

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 10:55:21AM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>http://abevigoda.com/

Ah, memories:

http://tinyurl.com/cwzj7
or maybe
http://tinyurl.com/csx4c

cgf

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Dave Korn]

----Original Message----
>From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
>Sent: 31 May 2005 18:55

> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:03PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> ----Original Message----
>>> From: Dave Korn
>>> Sent: 31 May 2005 18:43
>> 
>>> ----Original Message----
>>>> From: Christopher Faylor
>>>> Sent: 31 May 2005 18:17
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:52:11PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>>>> ----Original Message----
>>>>>> From: Christopher Faylor
>>>>>> Sent: 29 May 2005 18:04
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Oh, and you'll also need a couple of groupies who respond with over
>>>>>> the top and inappropriate references to your psychology and
>>>>>> upbringing whenever they see an opening to give vent to their
>>>>>> repetitive vindictiveness.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If supplies run short in your neighbourhood grocery store, please
>>>>> apply to Usenet.  They have plenty of spares.
>>>> 
>>>> I think you're thinking of "groupers", Dave.  That's a whole different
>>>> kettle of fish. 
>>>> 
>>>> cgf
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   Nope, I think I was thinking of "fanboys", or "kooks, cyberstalkers
>>> and net.loons", to give them their technical nomenclature.
>> 
>> 
>>   Hang on a minute, I just realised an even bigger problem with your
>> statement:  You think I might be telling people to go looking for _fish_
>> on Usenet?
> 
> http://abevigoda.com/


Cool![*]  Thank you for helping me discover

http://alienlovespredator.com/index.php?id=1


    cheers,
      DaveK

[*]PS  What's the connection between Abe Vigoda, fish, and Usenet?[**]

[**]PS2  I know, of course.  I'm just testing you ....
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Igor Pechtchanski]

On Tue, 31 May 2005, Dave Korn wrote:

> ----Original Message----
> >From: Dave Korn
> >Sent: 31 May 2005 18:43
>
> > ----Original Message----
> >> From: Christopher Faylor
> >> Sent: 31 May 2005 18:17
> >
> >> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:52:11PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >>> ----Original Message----
> >>>> From: Christopher Faylor
> >>>> Sent: 29 May 2005 18:04
> >>>
> >>>> Oh, and you'll also need a couple of groupies who respond with over the
> >>>> top and inappropriate references to your psychology and upbringing
> >>>> whenever they see an opening to give vent to their repetitive
> >>>> vindictiveness.
> >>>
> >>> If supplies run short in your neighbourhood grocery store, please apply
> >>> to Usenet.  They have plenty of spares.
> >>
> >> I think you're thinking of "groupers", Dave.  That's a whole different
> >> kettle of fish.
> >>
> >> cgf
> >
> >
> >   Nope, I think I was thinking of "fanboys", or "kooks, cyberstalkers and
> > net.loons", to give them their technical nomenclature.
>
>
>   Hang on a minute, I just realised an even bigger problem with your
> statement:  You think I might be telling people to go looking for _fish_ on
> Usenet?
>
>  ... no, ok, I guess that's *just* the sort of thing I might find myself
> saying ...

Well, you know the old parable about teaching the man to fish (or troll,
for that matter)...
	Igor
-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor@watson.ibm.com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:47:03PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> ----Original Message----
> >From: Dave Korn
> >Sent: 31 May 2005 18:43
> 
> > ----Original Message----
> >> From: Christopher Faylor
> >> Sent: 31 May 2005 18:17
> > 
> >> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:52:11PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> >>> ----Original Message----
> >>>> From: Christopher Faylor
> >>>> Sent: 29 May 2005 18:04
> >>> 
> >>>> Oh, and you'll also need a couple of groupies who respond with over the
> >>>> top and inappropriate references to your psychology and upbringing
> >>>> whenever they see an opening to give vent to their repetitive
> >>>> vindictiveness.
> >>> 
> >>> If supplies run short in your neighbourhood grocery store, please apply
> >>> to Usenet.  They have plenty of spares.
> >> 
> >> I think you're thinking of "groupers", Dave.  That's a whole different
> >> kettle of fish. 
> >> 
> >> cgf
> > 
> > 
> >   Nope, I think I was thinking of "fanboys", or "kooks, cyberstalkers and
> > net.loons", to give them their technical nomenclature.
>  
> 
>   Hang on a minute, I just realised an even bigger problem with your
> statement:  You think I might be telling people to go looking for _fish_ on
> Usenet?

http://abevigoda.com/

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Dave Korn]

----Original Message----
>From: Dave Korn
>Sent: 31 May 2005 18:43

> ----Original Message----
>> From: Christopher Faylor
>> Sent: 31 May 2005 18:17
> 
>> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:52:11PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> ----Original Message----
>>>> From: Christopher Faylor
>>>> Sent: 29 May 2005 18:04
>>> 
>>>> Oh, and you'll also need a couple of groupies who respond with over the
>>>> top and inappropriate references to your psychology and upbringing
>>>> whenever they see an opening to give vent to their repetitive
>>>> vindictiveness.
>>> 
>>> If supplies run short in your neighbourhood grocery store, please apply
>>> to Usenet.  They have plenty of spares.
>> 
>> I think you're thinking of "groupers", Dave.  That's a whole different
>> kettle of fish. 
>> 
>> cgf
> 
> 
>   Nope, I think I was thinking of "fanboys", or "kooks, cyberstalkers and
> net.loons", to give them their technical nomenclature.
 

  Hang on a minute, I just realised an even bigger problem with your
statement:  You think I might be telling people to go looking for _fish_ on
Usenet?










 ... no, ok, I guess that's *just* the sort of thing I might find myself
saying ...

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Dave Korn]

----Original Message----
>From: Christopher Faylor
>Sent: 31 May 2005 18:17

> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:52:11PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> ----Original Message----
>>> From: Christopher Faylor
>>> Sent: 29 May 2005 18:04
>> 
>>> Oh, and you'll also need a couple of groupies who respond with over the
>>> top and inappropriate references to your psychology and upbringing
>>> whenever they see an opening to give vent to their repetitive
>>> vindictiveness.
>> 
>> If supplies run short in your neighbourhood grocery store, please apply
>> to Usenet.  They have plenty of spares.
> 
> I think you're thinking of "groupers", Dave.  That's a whole different
> kettle of fish.
> 
> cgf


  Nope, I think I was thinking of "fanboys", or "kooks, cyberstalkers and
net.loons", to give them their technical nomenclature.



    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:52:11PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>----Original Message----
>>From: Christopher Faylor
>>Sent: 29 May 2005 18:04
>
>>Oh, and you'll also need a couple of groupies who respond with over the
>>top and inappropriate references to your psychology and upbringing
>>whenever they see an opening to give vent to their repetitive
>>vindictiveness.
>
>If supplies run short in your neighbourhood grocery store, please apply
>to Usenet.  They have plenty of spares.

I think you're thinking of "groupers", Dave.  That's a whole different kettle
of fish.

cgf

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Dave Korn]

----Original Message----
>From: Christopher Faylor
>Sent: 29 May 2005 18:04


> 
> Oh, and you'll also need a couple of groupies who respond with over the
> top and inappropriate references to your psychology and upbringing
> whenever they see an opening to give vent to their repetitive
> vindictiveness.
> 

  If supplies run short in your neighbourhood grocery store, please apply to
Usenet.  They have plenty of spares.


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:48:30PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > 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".

I don't think you understand what cgf was apologizing about.

And I'm not sure where you get the "manifesto" or "rationalization"
from.  I thought it was neat that he could summarize so well his
tendency to direct people toward acting in their own best interests,
which is what is jokingly referred to as being "mean".  I understand
that you don't get the joke, but do you have to show so repetitively
that you don't get it?

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:14:53PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >- Are you trying to start some sort of "flame-off" here, Chris?  I can't
say
> >I'm real interested in participating.  If on the other hand this is a cry
> >for help, I would of course be happy to do what I can.
> 
> You're so funny.  Are you the victim now?
> 
> cgf

Ok Chris, ok, you got me to temporarily subscribe to cygwin-talk.  Two more
things:

- You didn't respond to my second question.
- "Are you the victim now?".  No, Chris, I'm not a victim.  What do you
believe you are a victim of?

And a third thing:

- Yes, I am a pretty funny guy.  But there's nothing comical about your
habitual anti-social behavior, nor your attempts to rationalize it to
yourself, nor is there anything insincere about my offers of assistance.

Oh, and I guess there's a fourth thing as well:

- You didn't respond to my first question either: are you trying to start
some sort of "flame-off" here?  If not, what are you trying to do here?

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:14:53PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>- Are you trying to start some sort of "flame-off" here, Chris?  I can't say
>I'm real interested in participating.  If on the other hand this is a cry
>for help, I would of course be happy to do what I can.

You're so funny.  Are you the victim now?

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:48:30PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>And as long as I'm here and this is the correct venue for such ponderings
>(at least according to Chris today),

and on multiple other occasions... ...and at least once by Corinna...

>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?

My apology in the cygwin list came after my response to Ed, when I
subsequently realized that FlightGear was not a commercial entity asking
for free technical support -- as I had been implying.  I'm sorry that my
meandering email somehow gave you the idea that not caring what some
people thought about my email style would equate to never offering an
apology when I think I've done something wrong.  That is not the case.

I don't think I have been sending many meandering rationalizations about
my behavior but, thanks for the heads up.  I'd already made a vow to
myself not to do that again any time soon but your observation has
reinforced my resolve.

That is not to say that I won't defend myself if the need arises but
I'll try to forego any further meandering explications of my personal
philosophy even if they do seem to be de rigueur for free software
project leads these days.

Hmm.  Maybe I need a blog.

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:15:56PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >Can we get a gold star here for Chris' first-ever apology for his
> >anti-social behavior?
> 
> Ah.  Here we are.
> 
> GVRS, I think we're still waiting for your apology for your use of
> profanity, but then, I suspect that if I did a google groups search on
> 
> "Gary Van R. Sickle" apology OR wrong OR sorry
> 
> the most common thing we'd ever see is you engorged with indignation and
> demanding apologies or you excitedly telling people they were wrong or
> you moaning that they should be sorry.
> 
> So, while I've vowed to follow your valuable lead by attempting to emulate
> you in email, this is one place that I don't think I will go.
> 
> Instead, when I think I've done something wrong, I will apologize.  On
this
> issue, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
> 
> cgf

Ok Chris, two questions:

- Are you trying to start some sort of "flame-off" here, Chris?  I can't say
I'm real interested in participating.  If on the other hand this is a cry
for help, I would of course be happy to do what I can.
- What am I free to say here without attracting vague threats from you such
as the one you just posted to cygwin@?  Since, as you said yourself, "[you]
(and Corinna) get to make the rules and [you] (we) get to comport
[ourselves] how [you] (we) see fit", I kind of need to know this sort of
thing up front.

An aside, probably not germane to this discussion: I don't recall anybody
ever taking Corinna to task on her comportment.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:15:56PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>Can we get a gold star here for Chris' first-ever apology for his
>anti-social behavior?

Ah.  Here we are.

GVRS, I think we're still waiting for your apology for your use of
profanity, but then, I suspect that if I did a google groups search on

"Gary Van R. Sickle" apology OR wrong OR sorry

the most common thing we'd ever see is you engorged with indignation and
demanding apologies or you excitedly telling people they were wrong or
you moaning that they should be sorry.

So, while I've vowed to follow your valuable lead by attempting to emulate
you in email, this is one place that I don't think I will go.

Instead, when I think I've done something wrong, I will apologize.  On this
issue, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Gary R. Van Sickle]

> 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

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

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?

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 01:03:43PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 09:07:11AM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 12:04:24PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:24:31PM +0200, Vaclav Haisman wrote:
> >> >PS: I think that cgf should really try to improve his PR skills.
> >> 
> >> "PR"?  I am not really interested in public relations.  If you don't
> >> like the way I communicate, just delete my email.  It's pretty simple.
> >
> >We could make this easy for people by providing a cgf-free version of
> >the list.  But to avoid disciminating specifically against cgf, it
> >should also filter out anyone who volunteers to be placed in the same
> >boat.  I, for one, volunteer.
> 
> Maybe there should be some kind of discriminator though.
...
> Anyone who did all of those things would clearly be a terrible person
> and you should avoid any and all contact with them.  So, I think your
> list idea is a good one but I'd make sure that only the truly deserving
> were excluded from it.  You are a nice guy who provides a valuable
> service to cygwin but, I'm sorry, I just don't think you're evil enough
> to qualify.

You're right; in any case, cgf should have veto-rights over the filteree
list.

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 09:07:11AM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 12:04:24PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:24:31PM +0200, Vaclav Haisman wrote:
>> >PS: I think that cgf should really try to improve his PR skills.
>> 
>> "PR"?  I am not really interested in public relations.  If you don't
>> like the way I communicate, just delete my email.  It's pretty simple.
>
>We could make this easy for people by providing a cgf-free version of
>the list.  But to avoid disciminating specifically against cgf, it
>should also filter out anyone who volunteers to be placed in the same
>boat.  I, for one, volunteer.

Maybe there should be some kind of discriminator though.  In order to be
excluded from the WJM-free list, you first have to spend 10+ hours a
week working on cygwin and 2-5 hours a week working on sourceware.org,
updating software, improving spam filters, implementing virus blocks,
improving performance, and responding to "I try unsubscribe, you suck,
free software suks" and the "my mail bounce.  I not spammer." messages.
And, you have to be in the top twenty posters for sending email to
sourceware.org lists, answering the majority of email with helpful
directions.

You should also support 10+ cygwin packages, monitor the gcc, gdb,
binutils, and crossgcc mailing lists for windows problems and monitor
the majority of other sourceware.org lists for spam or mailing list
administrative problems.

Oh, and you'll also need a couple of groupies who respond with over the
top and inappropriate references to your psychology and upbringing
whenever they see an opening to give vent to their repetitive
vindictiveness.

Anyone who did all of those things would clearly be a terrible person
and you should avoid any and all contact with them.  So, I think your
list idea is a good one but I'd make sure that only the truly deserving
were excluded from it.  You are a nice guy who provides a valuable
service to cygwin but, I'm sorry, I just don't think you're evil enough
to qualify.

cgf

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 12:04:24PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:24:31PM +0200, Vaclav Haisman wrote:
> >PS: I think that cgf should really try to improve his PR skills.
> 
> "PR"?  I am not really interested in public relations.  If you don't
> like the way I communicate, just delete my email.  It's pretty simple.

We could make this easy for people by providing a cgf-free version of
the list.  But to avoid disciminating specifically against cgf, it
should also filter out anyone who volunteers to be placed in the same
boat.  I, for one, volunteer.

Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:29:54PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
>But Mr.  Faylor, no offense, but you *are* snippy.  You complain about
>lack of clue in bug reports, lack of motivation for people to pick up
>the code and play with it, yet you *constantly* throw cold water on
>people's motivation to feel good about dealing with cygwin.
>
>Just some advice - take a step back and get a good meta-view at
>yourself.

Aren't you the guy who insisted that you had a right to communicate in
private email about some kind of plan to merge MinGW and Cygwin and then
subsequently complained, in multiple messages to the cygwin list, about
the fact that I didn't want to talk to you privately?  I am pretty sure
that's you.  I just like to set the stage when someone starts off on
this type of email.

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.

cgf