* Windows XP Fix @ 2001-09-08 20:53 Greg Fodor 2001-09-08 22:11 ` Christopher Faylor 2001-09-09 6:41 ` Jim Reisert AD1C 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Greg Fodor @ 2001-09-08 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows XP Fix 2001-09-08 20:53 Windows XP Fix Greg Fodor @ 2001-09-08 22:11 ` Christopher Faylor 2001-09-09 8:30 ` Greg Fodor 2001-09-09 6:41 ` Jim Reisert AD1C 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2001-09-08 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* RE: Windows XP Fix 2001-09-08 22:11 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2001-09-09 8:30 ` Greg Fodor 2001-09-09 9:54 ` Christopher Faylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Greg Fodor @ 2001-09-09 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows XP Fix 2001-09-09 8:30 ` Greg Fodor @ 2001-09-09 9:54 ` Christopher Faylor 2001-09-09 10:55 ` Greg Fodor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2001-09-09 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* RE: Windows XP Fix 2001-09-09 9:54 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2001-09-09 10:55 ` Greg Fodor 2001-09-09 11:37 ` Christopher Faylor 2001-09-09 12:26 ` Charles Wilson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Greg Fodor @ 2001-09-09 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows XP Fix 2001-09-09 10:55 ` Greg Fodor @ 2001-09-09 11:37 ` Christopher Faylor 2001-09-09 12:26 ` Charles Wilson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2001-09-09 11:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows XP Fix 2001-09-09 10:55 ` Greg Fodor 2001-09-09 11:37 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2001-09-09 12:26 ` Charles Wilson 2001-09-09 14:03 ` Alex Malinovich 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Charles Wilson @ 2001-09-09 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg Fodor; +Cc: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* RE: Windows XP Fix 2001-09-09 12:26 ` Charles Wilson @ 2001-09-09 14:03 ` Alex Malinovich 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Alex Malinovich @ 2001-09-09 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Windows XP Fix 2001-09-08 20:53 Windows XP Fix Greg Fodor 2001-09-08 22:11 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2001-09-09 6:41 ` Jim Reisert AD1C 2001-09-09 7:34 ` Jorg 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Jim Reisert AD1C @ 2001-09-09 6:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin, Greg Fodor 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* RE: Windows XP Fix 2001-09-09 6:41 ` Jim Reisert AD1C @ 2001-09-09 7:34 ` Jorg 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jorg @ 2001-09-09 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-09-09 14:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-09-08 20:53 Windows XP Fix Greg Fodor 2001-09-08 22:11 ` Christopher Faylor 2001-09-09 8:30 ` Greg Fodor 2001-09-09 9:54 ` Christopher Faylor 2001-09-09 10:55 ` Greg Fodor 2001-09-09 11:37 ` Christopher Faylor 2001-09-09 12:26 ` Charles Wilson 2001-09-09 14:03 ` Alex Malinovich 2001-09-09 6:41 ` Jim Reisert AD1C 2001-09-09 7:34 ` Jorg
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).