Windows XP Fix

Windows XP Fix

[Greg Fodor]

I was able to get rid of the Windows XP issue of being unable to
allocate the heap by copying bash.exe from my bash-2.04-7a.tar.gz
installation on another PC. (I think that's the version I was using.)

Hopefully this resolves the issue completely (for the time being) until
bash is updated upon the release of XP.

-Greg



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Windows XP Fix

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:53:48PM -0400, Greg Fodor wrote:
>I was able to get rid of the Windows XP issue of being unable to
>allocate the heap by copying bash.exe from my bash-2.04-7a.tar.gz
>installation on another PC. (I think that's the version I was using.)
>
>Hopefully this resolves the issue completely (for the time being) until
>bash is updated upon the release of XP.

Any problems with Cygwin under Windows XP are not related to bash.

There have been reported problems under tcsh, too.

When this is eventually fixed (when XP becomes an actual released
product), it will require changes to the Cygwin DLL.

The Cygwin DLL != bash.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Windows XP Fix

[Jim Reisert AD1C]

I am having success with the cygwin1.dll from the 1 September 2001
snapshot.  The issue has nothing to do with bash.

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 23:53:48 -0400, Greg Fodor wrote:

>I was able to get rid of the Windows XP issue of being unable to
>allocate the heap by copying bash.exe from my bash-2.04-7a.tar.gz
>installation on another PC. (I think that's the version I was using.)
>
>Hopefully this resolves the issue completely (for the time being) until
>bash is updated upon the release of XP.

--
Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA +978-251-9933, <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>, http://www.ad1c.com



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Windows XP Fix

[Jorg]

Same here, after switching to Sept 1 snapshot of cygwin all is working
fine again, I agree, don't think it has anything to do with bash.

Jorg
-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
[ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com ] On Behalf Of Jim Reisert AD1C
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 8:41 AM
To: cygwin@cygwin.com; Greg Fodor
Subject: Re: Windows XP Fix

I am having success with the cygwin1.dll from the 1 September 2001
snapshot.  The issue has nothing to do with bash.

On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 23:53:48 -0400, Greg Fodor wrote:

>I was able to get rid of the Windows XP issue of being unable to
>allocate the heap by copying bash.exe from my bash-2.04-7a.tar.gz
>installation on another PC. (I think that's the version I was using.)
>
>Hopefully this resolves the issue completely (for the time being) until
>bash is updated upon the release of XP.

--
Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA 01863
USA +978-251-9933, <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>, http://www.ad1c.com



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Windows XP Fix

[Greg Fodor]

Well, I was getting a error in allocating the heap when running a cygwin
program within another cygwin program (this, from reading the archives,
seems to be the main Windows XP issue.) The error disappeared completely
by replacing bash.exe from the older install and executing programs from
within that shell. If I try to execute programs from within cmd.exe
which call other programs (tar cfz for example, which executes gzip from
within tar) the problem persists.. however from within the older
bash.exe it does not occur.

I figured this out via a painful process of elimination of files between
an older copied functional install on XP and a newly installed from the
net non-functional install on XP.

Regardless of what you state the problem to be, I'm running a handful of
daemons and working in a cygwin environment under Windows XP as I type
this and was not able to do so until I copied over the old bash.exe. I
don't know enough about cygwin's internals to extrapolate what this
means, but that's what I have to present to the list for people who are
having the same problem.

Basically the internal nature of the issue makes no difference to me
(nor, I'd guess, to 99% of the people who want cygwin to run on XP.)
Upon your own investigation and confirmation, it might be a good idea to
put a small blurb on the front page as this being a temporary quick fix
to the problem. 

Thanks.

-Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
[ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com ] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:12 AM
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Windows XP Fix

On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:53:48PM -0400, Greg Fodor wrote:
>I was able to get rid of the Windows XP issue of being unable to
>allocate the heap by copying bash.exe from my bash-2.04-7a.tar.gz
>installation on another PC. (I think that's the version I was using.)
>
>Hopefully this resolves the issue completely (for the time being) until
>bash is updated upon the release of XP.

Any problems with Cygwin under Windows XP are not related to bash.

There have been reported problems under tcsh, too.

When this is eventually fixed (when XP becomes an actual released
product), it will require changes to the Cygwin DLL.

The Cygwin DLL != bash.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Windows XP Fix

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 11:30:47AM -0400, Greg Fodor wrote:
>Well, I was getting a error in allocating the heap when running a cygwin
>program within another cygwin program (this, from reading the archives,
>seems to be the main Windows XP issue.) The error disappeared completely
>by replacing bash.exe from the older install and executing programs from
>within that shell. If I try to execute programs from within cmd.exe
>which call other programs (tar cfz for example, which executes gzip from
>within tar) the problem persists.. however from within the older
>bash.exe it does not occur.
>
>I figured this out via a painful process of elimination of files between
>an older copied functional install on XP and a newly installed from the
>net non-functional install on XP.
>
>Regardless of what you state the problem to be, I'm running a handful of
>daemons and working in a cygwin environment under Windows XP as I type
>this and was not able to do so until I copied over the old bash.exe. I
>don't know enough about cygwin's internals to extrapolate what this
>means, but that's what I have to present to the list for people who are
>having the same problem.

Did you even read what I said?  Do you know what "tcsh" is by any chance?
It's an alternate shell to bash.  It's *known* to fail on Windows XP.
inetd is known to fail on Windows XP.

How would suggesting that people change to some other version of bash
solve their problems?

What you're basically saying is "I'm completely ignorant of anything
that is going on.  However I found a magic incantation that works fine
so I'm using that.  Please don't confuse me with your silly attempts to
explain the situation to me.  I must now walk widdershins around my
computer.  Where is that chicken...?"

>Basically the internal nature of the issue makes no difference to me
>(nor, I'd guess, to 99% of the people who want cygwin to run on XP.)
>Upon your own investigation and confirmation, it might be a good idea to
>put a small blurb on the front page as this being a temporary quick fix
>to the problem. 

I'm not investigating or confirming anything.  The statement on the main
page stays until Windows XP is released.  You can probably consult some
Tarot cards to figure out when that will be.

cgf

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
>[ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com ] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
>Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:12 AM
>To: cygwin@cygwin.com
>Subject: Re: Windows XP Fix
>
>On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:53:48PM -0400, Greg Fodor wrote:
>>I was able to get rid of the Windows XP issue of being unable to
>>allocate the heap by copying bash.exe from my bash-2.04-7a.tar.gz
>>installation on another PC. (I think that's the version I was using.)
>>
>>Hopefully this resolves the issue completely (for the time being) until
>>bash is updated upon the release of XP.
>
>Any problems with Cygwin under Windows XP are not related to bash.
>
>There have been reported problems under tcsh, too.
>
>When this is eventually fixed (when XP becomes an actual released
>product), it will require changes to the Cygwin DLL.
>
>The Cygwin DLL != bash.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Windows XP Fix

[Greg Fodor]

No need to get nasty. Christ.

I spent like 3 hours screwing around with my cygwin install and surfing
archives in order to get it working under XP for the time being until
someone fixes cygwin1.dll. I offered my hacked solution, something I did
to get _my work done_ as a temporary way of working around the problem
until the correct solution is found. I didn't investigate into the
September 1st cygwin1.dll snap yet, though I'm guessing that's the
optimal solution.

Regardless, you should offer your users *something* on the webpage. The
"sorry, come back later" message there now, frankly, blows, since more
information is available for people who want to spend the extra effort
to get their stuff working. The fact that some people have gotten XP
working by changing the DLL, or by switching bash.exe, is enough to
warrant a quick-fix note on the page to avoid the hassle of forcing
users to figure it out on their own. Don't you care that people are
pissed off right now because cygwin is broken on XP? (Which BTW, is in
the hands of OEMs and being installed on PCs as I write this, AFAIK.) If
you are waiting for the retail release, people who have XP on their
computers now from OEMs and beta people will be forced to wait another
month and have broken systems.

I realize that it doesn't make any sense as to why running programs from
within an old copy of bash keeps the problem from occurring, but the
fact is it does and I can now run my PostgreSQL server within bash on XP
whereas I normally couldn't. 

The point is, nobody gives a damn about the reason something is broken,
simply enough, it's broken. If my sink is leaking all over my floor and
all I have is the piece of gum in my mouth to fix it for the time being,
then, fuck yes, I'll use the gum until the plumber gets there.

I'm not "confused" and of course I know what tcsh is... I never said
that my fix is "the" solution; I said it's a fix for the time being.

I subscribed to this list in order to post what I had found so as to
help others, and I get ridiculed. Very nice of you, I'll be polite and
assume you don't represent the rest of your peers.

-Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
[ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com ] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 12:54 PM
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Windows XP Fix

On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 11:30:47AM -0400, Greg Fodor wrote:
>Well, I was getting a error in allocating the heap when running a
cygwin
>program within another cygwin program (this, from reading the archives,
>seems to be the main Windows XP issue.) The error disappeared
completely
>by replacing bash.exe from the older install and executing programs
from
>within that shell. If I try to execute programs from within cmd.exe
>which call other programs (tar cfz for example, which executes gzip
from
>within tar) the problem persists.. however from within the older
>bash.exe it does not occur.
>
>I figured this out via a painful process of elimination of files
between
>an older copied functional install on XP and a newly installed from the
>net non-functional install on XP.
>
>Regardless of what you state the problem to be, I'm running a handful
of
>daemons and working in a cygwin environment under Windows XP as I type
>this and was not able to do so until I copied over the old bash.exe. I
>don't know enough about cygwin's internals to extrapolate what this
>means, but that's what I have to present to the list for people who are
>having the same problem.

Did you even read what I said?  Do you know what "tcsh" is by any
chance?
It's an alternate shell to bash.  It's *known* to fail on Windows XP.
inetd is known to fail on Windows XP.

How would suggesting that people change to some other version of bash
solve their problems?

What you're basically saying is "I'm completely ignorant of anything
that is going on.  However I found a magic incantation that works fine
so I'm using that.  Please don't confuse me with your silly attempts to
explain the situation to me.  I must now walk widdershins around my
computer.  Where is that chicken...?"

>Basically the internal nature of the issue makes no difference to me
>(nor, I'd guess, to 99% of the people who want cygwin to run on XP.)
>Upon your own investigation and confirmation, it might be a good idea
to
>put a small blurb on the front page as this being a temporary quick fix
>to the problem. 

I'm not investigating or confirming anything.  The statement on the main
page stays until Windows XP is released.  You can probably consult some
Tarot cards to figure out when that will be.

cgf

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
>[ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com ] On Behalf Of Christopher
Faylor
>Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:12 AM
>To: cygwin@cygwin.com
>Subject: Re: Windows XP Fix
>
>On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 11:53:48PM -0400, Greg Fodor wrote:
>>I was able to get rid of the Windows XP issue of being unable to
>>allocate the heap by copying bash.exe from my bash-2.04-7a.tar.gz
>>installation on another PC. (I think that's the version I was using.)
>>
>>Hopefully this resolves the issue completely (for the time being)
until
>>bash is updated upon the release of XP.
>
>Any problems with Cygwin under Windows XP are not related to bash.
>
>There have been reported problems under tcsh, too.
>
>When this is eventually fixed (when XP becomes an actual released
>product), it will require changes to the Cygwin DLL.
>
>The Cygwin DLL != bash.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Windows XP Fix

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 01:55:13PM -0400, Greg Fodor wrote:
>I subscribed to this list in order to post what I had found so as to
>help others, and I get ridiculed.  Very nice of you, I'll be polite and
>assume you don't represent the rest of your peers.

Good assumption.  The rest of my peers are all very nice people,
selflessly contributing their spare time to the cygwin project.

In fact, many of them even seem to have infinite amounts of patience for
discussing these kinds of issues.

Anyway, I withdraw my previous objections to discussing Windows XP here.
I wouldn't want to have anyone else suffer through three hours worth
of investigation.

I am not going to modify the cygwin web page, however.  If some
enterprising individual (perhaps the person who wanted to start a survey
initially) wants to set up an unofficial web page, we can link to that
from http://cygwin.com/ .  Just enter it in the "news" section and
Corinna or I will see that it shows up.

I've spent enough time discussing Windows XP now.  I don't plan on
responding to any more messages about this until it is officially
supported in cygwin (or I need beta testers or something).

So, have fun, and discuss amongst yourselves.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: Windows XP Fix

[Charles Wilson]

Greg Fodor wrote:

> No need to get nasty. Christ.


Sure, Chris went a little over the top.  But, it was *completely* 
justified -- put yourself in the shoes of the core developers.  Take a 
look at the furball that's erupted over the last week with 
cygwin-1.3.3(no, not ready yet).  We've all got "real" jobs; this is 
volunteer work -- and there's plenty to keep all of us busy 24 hours a 
day on CURRENTLY RELEASED OS's.

It stuns me how many people are doing beta testing for Microsoft's 
latest closed source nightmare, but don't want to dig in to the problems 
they encounter with open source projects on that platform.  Yet they 
expect us -- who do not have this AS YET UNRELEASED operating system -- 
to fix something in the code for them.

> 
> I spent like 3 hours screwing around with my cygwin install and surfing
> archives 


Then surely you saw how many people continually report that "sigwin 
doesn't work on XP" or "cyguin works for me on XP".  The fact is, *we do 
not care*.  Yet.

And in three hours, you could have learned a lot more about the cygwin 
code itself, and perhaps contributed to a solution -- instead of coming 
up with, as Chris puts it, "a magic incantation".

> in order to get it working under XP for the time being until
> someone fixes cygwin1.dll. 


"someone"?  Who would you suggest?  Would you like to nominate me? Or 
Chris? or Egor?  I'd imagine you'd have to talk to our "real" bosses if 
you want to schedule our time for us.

Oh, yeah -- and buy us all copies of XP once it hits the streets.  (BTW: 
I sure as HELL am not going to use XP -- ever, if I can help it.  The 
more I read about it, the less I like.  I'll stick with 2000 until I 
finally and completely switch over to linux for desktop work.)  I'm 
pretty sure Egor, Chris, Robert, Corinna, etc are NOT all panting and 
bursting with anticipation to rush out to Fry's at midnight to pick up a 
copy of XP as soon as it's released.

Point; Free software works like this: programmers scratching an itch in 
their free time.  *You* have the itch.  Go scratch.

> I offered my hacked solution, something I did
> to get _my work done_ as a temporary way of working around the problem
> until the correct solution is found. I didn't investigate into the
> September 1st cygwin1.dll snap yet, though I'm guessing that's the
> optimal solution.


Wait -- so cygwin was in your critical path for getting work done. 
Ergo, you had a working cygwin install at some point -- running on some 
released version of windows (9x/Me/NT/2K).  Then, you installed a BETA 
version of Windows -- without checking first to see if cygwin worked on 
it -- and you did this on your primary work machine?  So the breakage in 
your critical work path is OUR fault?

Umm...no.

It's your fault.  *NEVER* install a beta OS in your crit work path, 
unless your job is writing programs and/or drivers that must hit the 
street when the OS is released.  (But if that were the case, then you 
wouldn't be using cygwin at all -- so I doubt that).

> 
> Regardless, you should offer your users *something* on the webpage. The
> "sorry, come back later" message there now, frankly, blows, since more
> information is available for people who want to spend the extra effort
> to get their stuff working. 


Sure.  If somebody would provide REAL information.  As in, "there's a 
bug in the malloc implementation of cygwin that causes problems on XP. 
This will be fixed once XP is released and some XP-users can join the 
development team, but for now, the cygwin snapshot from Sept 1 seems to 
be okay.  HOWEVER, XP is NOT officially supported yet, so do not be 
alarmed when you get some grumpy responses if you complain about 
problems on that platform prior to XP's official release."

Not "replace your bash.exe and magically your tcsh will start working if 
you've installed the cygwin-1.1.2 dll."  or whatever it was that you 
were suggesting (I know, that "quote" is an exaggeration...)

> The fact that some people have gotten XP
> working by changing the DLL, or by switching bash.exe, is enough to
> warrant a quick-fix note on the page to avoid the hassle of forcing
> users to figure it out on their own. Don't you care that people are
> pissed off right now because cygwin is broken on XP? 


No.  I don't care.  Remember, free software is about freedom: I'm free 
to scratch MY itch by digging into the code.  My itch collection does 
not currently (and will not ever, if I can help it) include "XP".  YOU 
are free to scratch your itch, which apparently has XP very high on the 
list.  But not high enough for you to actually download, study, and 
debug the code on your UNRELEASED platform.

> (Which BTW, is in
> the hands of OEMs and being installed on PCs as I write this, AFAIK.) If
> you are waiting for the retail release, people who have XP on their
> computers now from OEMs and beta people will be forced to wait another
> month and have broken systems.


fine.  So buy Corinna a new computer with XP preinstalled.  (Be sure to 
get the appropriate export licenses for shipping a computer and software 
overseas).  Or buy Chris a new computer.

The fact is, cygwin is NOT part of anybody's job description.  *It is 
volunteer work* -- even for Chris.  [okay, corinna may have cygwin in 
her j.d. -- I'm not sure.]  Geez -- I'm already a year overdue with my 
Ph.D. thesis; you want me to spend MORE of my time on cygwin so that it 
works on an OS that I personally don't give a rat's **** for?

I'm not going to go out and buy a new computer with an OS that sounds 
like worse *@^& that usual, in order to make cygwin work better for 
people who don't have the gumption to help themselves.  Nor am I going 
to go out and spend $$$ on this year's "revolution" from Redmond.  I 
*do* real work on my primary machine; it's happy with 2000.  I ain't 
changin' nuthin' until my thesis is done.

Frell!  Why can't those of you who HAVE the damn OS do some #&!@##$ 
work, fer gossakes?  and those people who DO buy a new machine with a 
preinstalled XP -- do you think that some of THEM might be programmers? 
  Do you think that some of THEM might share your itch -- but also some 
initiative?

Sorry.  lost it there for a minute -- but this "topic" really irks me.


> I realize that it doesn't make any sense as to why running programs from
> within an old copy of bash keeps the problem from occurring, but the
> fact is it does and I can now run my PostgreSQL server within bash on XP
> whereas I normally couldn't. 
> 
> The point is, nobody gives a damn about the reason something is broken,
> simply enough, it's broken. If my sink is leaking all over my floor and
> all I have is the piece of gum in my mouth to fix it for the time being,
> then, fuck yes, I'll use the gum until the plumber gets there.


Look.  If you want cygwin to "work" on XP, then *developers* will have 
to understand WHY it doesn't work.  Otherwise, we can't fix it.  Magic 
incantations are just that -- magic.  It may be a race condition that 
appears on *your* version of XP -- and is somehow fixed by variant 
execution delay paths in bash-2.0.5-2 instead of -7.  On your system. 
With your collection of background services.  And your optimization 
tweaks.  On your filesystem. And with your particular collection of XP 
core dlls -- which may be different from the final "gold" ones.

Since it's just a magic incantation -- there's no guarantee, and even 
less likelihood -- that it will fix the problem on someone else's betaXP 
system.  What you have is an anecdotal data point.  But without 
understanding, there's no way to extrapolate that to even "workaround" 
status.  There's no reason, then, to post a list of anecdotes on the 
webpage; that's what the mailing list is for.  (Well, that and 
complaints about brokenness coupled with personal excuses).

Oops.  Lost it again.

> 
> I subscribed to this list in order to post what I had found so as to
> help others, 


Your intent was good.  Your message (and esp. followup) was like a knife 
on raw nerves.  We've been over this and over this on the list.  *WE* 
don't have XP.  Therefore *we* can't fix it.  Therefore, *somebody else* 
will have to fix it -- at least until/unless a core developer takes the 
XP plunge.  And suggesting magic "workarounds" *impedes* progress toward 
getting someone who actually HAS XP to actually FIX the bug.

It's because magic incantation/workarounds actually *IMPEDE* fixing the 
bug, that suggestions and presentations of those "workarounds" get 
flamed so hard.  We want cygwin to work -- not kinda sorta work if you 
stand on one leg and quote the Veda in its original sanskrit with 
incense burning.  (this is not ridicule; this is exaggeration for 
humorous effect)

Therefore, we'd like for XP users (at least a few of them) to take 
*current* cygwin software and debug it -- not encourage other XP users 
to stay off the mainline of developent and use old versions that kinda 
sorta work.

> and I get ridiculed. 


Look, mailing lists are not tea rooms.  This one is actually pretty 
mild.  (For kicks, go to the linux-kernel mailing list and suggest a C++ 
rewrite.  Or that Linus use CVS to track kernel patches.  Or that the 
linux-developers accept some patch to work around a bug in a 
(closed-source, non-free) NVidia graphics driver.  But put your asbestos 
suit on first...all of those suggestions are things that (a) have been 
discussed -- acrimoniously -- many many times before, (b) REALLY get 
under the skin of the core developers, and (c) have been 
authoritatively, definitively, and finally answered by Linus himself. 
Kinda like cygwin-on-XP here :-)

I lurked on the cygwin mailing list for *SIX MONTHS* before I made my 
first post. (yes, I walked to school 10 miles uphill both ways barefoot 
thru the snow in the summer.)  It took that long until I was sure I 
understood the background, culture, and project goals so that I wouldn't 
(a) embarass myself or (b) step on a land mine (XP...) and get flamed.

> Very nice of you, I'll be polite and
> assume you don't represent the rest of your peers.


Well...I don't like to flame people, but I'll do it if pushed.  Chris 
has been pushed, lately, so I cut him some slack on that point. 
However, the attitude of "we don't support beta OS's until they are 
released"?  Yeah, I think most of us agree with that.  As I said, we've 
got enough to keep us busy for months -- on currently released OS's.

Now, I just spent about an hour answering your email.  That hour could 
probably have been better spent on (a) cygwin development (b) my thesis 
(c) watching TV (d) sitting out in the sun on my porch.  That's another 
reason contentious topics get flamed -- we don't like re-answering the 
same question over and over -- especially those that require lots of 
explanation, like yours.  But, we do it anyway -- because hopefully, 
through the flickering flames, somebody somewhere might actually learn 
something.

A truly unfriendly list would just bit-bucket everything it disagreed with.

--Chuck


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: Windows XP Fix

[Alex Malinovich]

I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I've been on this list for 3
months now and I still haven't seen these particular issues addressed,
so I'm going to address what I can and question what I can't. I don't
mean to offend someone, so if this irritates you, I do apologize. Feel
free to ignore me and follow other more enjoyable pursuits. :)

> It stuns me how many people are doing beta testing for Microsoft's 
> latest closed source nightmare, but don't want to dig in to 
> the problems 
> they encounter with open source projects on that platform.  Yet they 
> expect us -- who do not have this AS YET UNRELEASED operating 
> system -- 
> to fix something in the code for them.

Keep in mind that not EVERYONE who uses Cygwin is a programmer. And keep
in mind that there are varying skill levels among those who are. I, for
one, am just a hobby programmer. I just BEGAN learning C++ a few months
ago. (Though I've been using Pascal and Perl for YEARS.) I, for one, do
not have the skill necessary to dig deep into the Cygwin code and do
fixes. I also have no real experience with developing native W32 apps,
so DLLs are all foreign to me. I'm just using myself as an example here,
but I'm sure I'm not the only one.


> Not "replace your bash.exe and magically your tcsh will start 
> working if 
> you've installed the cygwin-1.1.2 dll."  or whatever it was that you 
> were suggesting (I know, that "quote" is an exaggeration...)
>

Is this the "right" way to fix this problem? No. Does this even really
fix the problem? Not really. MIGHT it work for someone? Absolutely. If
John Q. Public just upgraded to XP from 2000 and needs, for whatever
reason (mission critical or not), to use Cygwin, I don't think he'll
care if he's fixing something "properly." Hell, if there's a chance that
rubbing chicken blood on his right buttock while standing on his head
and reciting "Somewhere over the rainbow" will make his Cygwin work
enough to run whatever he needs (or wants) to run I'm sure he'll
probably do it. I agree, this will quite possibly stunt XP development
as people will use this "magic formula" instead of actually fixing the
problem. But... (see below)

> No.  I don't care.  Remember, free software is about freedom: 
> I'm free 
> to scratch MY itch by digging into the code.  My itch collection does 
> not currently (and will not ever, if I can help it) include 
> "XP".

... you've said it yourself, you don't care whether or not Cygwin works
on XP. I'm sure there are LOTS of people who share your views. In that
case, posting a workaround to shut at least SOME people up who would
otherwise just subscribe to the list to tell us all that "Cygwin doesn't
work in XP" would, I think, be a positive thing. Once XP is released,
yank the info off the page so that a REAL solution can be found. But I
believe that having a half-assed, half-functional copy of Cygwin on a
half-assed OS such as XP is a better solution than no Cygwin at all,
esp. for the few people out there for whom rolling back to 2000 isn't an
option. 


> her j.d. -- I'm not sure.]  Geez -- I'm already a year 
> overdue with my 
> Ph.D. thesis; you want me to spend MORE of my time on cygwin 
> so that it 
> works on an OS that I personally don't give a rat's **** for?

Good luck with your thesis. :) And I don't think that this particular
thread was intended to tell you to FIX anything. It was a temporary
workaround that someone had luck with, and they've used successfully.
I'm sure you've seen FAQ pages for various products with something along
the lines of "Some users have had luck with performing steps X, Y, Z.
This is not a supported fix however, so we cannot offer technical
support if it does/does not work."

> incantations are just that -- magic.  It may be a race condition that 
> appears on *your* version of XP -- and is somehow fixed by variant 
> execution delay paths in bash-2.0.5-2 instead of -7.  On your system. 
> With your collection of background services.  And your optimization 
> tweaks.  On your filesystem. And with your particular 
> collection of XP 
> core dlls -- which may be different from the final "gold" ones.

A 1 in a million chance of a fix working for someone is, IMO, better
than that user banging his head on the desk saying "I have to wait 'till
October, I have to wait 'till October, I have to wait 'till October."


> status.  There's no reason, then, to post a list of anecdotes on the 
> webpage; that's what the mailing list is for.  (Well, that and 
> complaints about brokenness coupled with personal excuses).


This is just my personal view on mailing lists in general, but if
there's something that you KNOW will be asked on a mailing list, it
usually saves you quite a bit of aggrevation if you tell people about it
ahead of time instead of making them post a message that will only
irritate you. Since the note about Cygwin not working in XP was posted
on the main page, I've seen a great reduction in the number of "my
Cygwin doesn't work on XP" posts. What's to say that posting a
half-assed workaround wouldn't help reduce it further? (This isn't meant
to be confrontational, it's just a suggestion. I hate seeing endless XP
questions on here just as much as the next guy.)


> Well...I don't like to flame people, but I'll do it if pushed.  Chris 
> has been pushed, lately, so I cut him some slack on that point. 
> However, the attitude of "we don't support beta OS's until they are 
> released"?  Yeah, I think most of us agree with that.  As I 
> said, we've 
> got enough to keep us busy for months -- on currently released OS's.


You're a developer, not a help-desk person. The fact that people expect
help-desk-like service here is unfortunate, though understandable. I,
for one, don't WANT or EXPECT you to stay all calm and collected no
matter what happens. Every one of the developers who I've seen posting
on here since I've been around have been very helpful and dedicated, but
I know you all have your "raw nerves" that someone is bound to touch.
From personal experience, however, I've noticed that annoying people
leave MUCH more quickly when they are ignored than when you argue back
at them. That just keeps them going. Knowing my luck, this message will
end up ignored so as to state, without speaking, that I am one of those
annoying people. ;) As long as it results in some peace and quiet on
this list for a period of more than about 3 days, I'll still be happy.
:)

-Alex

P.s. Chuck, if it's nice and sunny out where you're at, please go
outside for MY sake. :) I'm being rained on something awful at the
moment, so I'd MUCH rather be basking in sunlight than in the blue glow
of my monitor. :)


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/