Newsgroup?

Newsgroup?

[Andreas Madritsch]

Hello

Is there a newsgroup, where I can post questions to cygwin?

I have problems compiling code with cygwin, which can be compiled with
djgpp without problems. The error messages looks
like:

timers.c: In function `alarmhandler':
timers.c:538: `SIGALRM' undeclared (first use in this function)
timers.c: In function `update_async':
timers.c:546: storage size of `t' isn't known
timers.c:553: `SIGALRM' undeclared (first use in this function)
timers.c:555: `ITIMER_REAL' undeclared (first use in this function)
timers.c:560: storage size of `t' isn't known

It seems that the headers signal.h and time.h aren't included properly.
I could add the following code extracted from signal.h and time.h to my
source:

#define SIGALRM 14
#define ITIMER_REAL 0
struct  itimerval {
  struct  timeval it_interval;
  struct  timeval it_value;
}t;

But the binary created then doesn't work.

btw. how can I generate binaries which don't use dll's from cygwin?

Thanks a lot


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Newsgroup?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 09:42:23PM +0100, Andreas Madritsch wrote:
>Is there a newsgroup, where I can post questions to cygwin?

The cygwin web page is http://cygwin.com/ .  Any information on what is
available is there.

>I have problems compiling code with cygwin, which can be compiled with
>djgpp without problems. The error messages looks
>like:
>
>timers.c: In function `alarmhandler':
>timers.c:538: `SIGALRM' undeclared (first use in this function)
>timers.c: In function `update_async':
>timers.c:546: storage size of `t' isn't known
>timers.c:553: `SIGALRM' undeclared (first use in this function)
>timers.c:555: `ITIMER_REAL' undeclared (first use in this function)
>timers.c:560: storage size of `t' isn't known
>
>It seems that the headers signal.h and time.h aren't included properly.
>I could add the following code extracted from signal.h and time.h to my
>source:
>
>#define SIGALRM 14
>#define ITIMER_REAL 0
>struct  itimerval {
>  struct  timeval it_interval;
>  struct  timeval it_value;
>}t;
>
>But the binary created then doesn't work.

ITIMER_REAL is defined in /usr/include/sys/time.h.

>btw. how can I generate binaries which don't use dll's from cygwin?

You can't.  Sorry.

Btw, if you use Cygwin in an application, the application automatically
becomes free software.  Just so you know.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Newsgroup?

[Andreas Madritsch]

Of course I knew that.

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> Btw, if you use Cygwin in an application, the application automatically
> becomes free software.  Just so you know.
>
> cgf


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[David Case]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> Btw, if you use Cygwin in an application, the application automatically
> becomes free software.  Just so you know.
> 

Just so *I* know, isn't the above oversimplified?

If I *distribute* an application linked to cygwin to others, I am obliged
to follow GPL-like rules for the whole application.  But simply *using*
cygwin (e.g. to compile some code that expects a Unix environment) for
my own use should not taint the code.  Is this not correct?

As a somewhat more realistic example, if I distribute source code under
conditions other than the GPL, and suggest to users that they could use
the cygwin package to compile my code on their Windows machine, would such
a suggestion somehow make the source code free software?  

...thanks for any clarification....dac

-- 

==================================================================
David A. Case                     |  e-mail:      case@scripps.edu
Dept. of Molecular Biology, TPC15 |  fax:          +1-858-784-8896
The Scripps Research Institute    |  phone:        +1-858-784-9768
10550 N. Torrey Pines Rd.         |  home page:                   
La Jolla CA 92037  USA            |    http://www.scripps.edu/case
==================================================================

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Bradley Bell]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 06:22:46PM -0800, David Case wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > 
> > Btw, if you use Cygwin in an application, the application automatically
> > becomes free software.  Just so you know.
> > 
> 
> Just so *I* know, isn't the above oversimplified?
> 
> If I *distribute* an application linked to cygwin to others, I am obliged
> to follow GPL-like rules for the whole application.  But simply *using*
> cygwin (e.g. to compile some code that expects a Unix environment) for
> my own use should not taint the code.  Is this not correct?

You can do whatever you want with it if you're not distributing.  This is an
inherent right with all copyrighted material.

> As a somewhat more realistic example, if I distribute source code under
> conditions other than the GPL, and suggest to users that they could use
> the cygwin package to compile my code on their Windows machine, would such
> a suggestion somehow make the source code free software?  

nope.  They can compile it however they like, suggesting that they use
cygwin doesn't really mean much.

-brad

> 
> ...thanks for any clarification....dac
> 
> -- 
> 
> ==================================================================
> David A. Case                     |  e-mail:      case@scripps.edu
> Dept. of Molecular Biology, TPC15 |  fax:          +1-858-784-8896
> The Scripps Research Institute    |  phone:        +1-858-784-9768
> 10550 N. Torrey Pines Rd.         |  home page:                   
> La Jolla CA 92037  USA            |    http://www.scripps.edu/case
> ==================================================================
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Charles Wilson]

Bradley Bell wrote:

> You can do whatever you want with it if you're not distributing.  This is an
> inherent right with all copyrighted material.

unless it's a DVD.  or the MPAA doesn't like what you do.  or the RIAA. 
:-)

--Chuck

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Bradley Bell]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:20:59PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Bradley Bell wrote:
> 
> > You can do whatever you want with it if you're not distributing.  This is an
> > inherent right with all copyrighted material.
> 
> unless it's a DVD.  or the MPAA doesn't like what you do.  or the RIAA. 
> :-)

I know what you mean.  The law is the law, though.  The only way they can
prevent you from doing what you want with it is if you're bound by a
contract.  Buying a DVD doesn't entail signing a contract.

Anyway, this is way off-topic, sorry!

-brad

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 07:51:38PM -0800, Bradley Bell wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:20:59PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Bradley Bell wrote:
>> 
>> > You can do whatever you want with it if you're not distributing.  This is an
>> > inherent right with all copyrighted material.
>> 
>> unless it's a DVD.  or the MPAA doesn't like what you do.  or the RIAA. 
>> :-)
>
>I know what you mean.  The law is the law, though.  The only way they can
>prevent you from doing what you want with it is if you're bound by a
>contract.  Buying a DVD doesn't entail signing a contract.
>
>Anyway, this is way off-topic, sorry!

Interesting, though...

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

RE: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Dennis McCunney]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of David Case
> Sent: 2001. February 14. 21:23
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: cygwin and GPL (again)
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> > Btw, if you use Cygwin in an application, the application
> > automatically becomes free software.  Just so you know.
>
> Just so *I* know, isn't the above oversimplified?

Not exactly.

> If I *distribute* an application linked to cygwin to others,
> I am obliged to follow GPL-like rules for the whole application.\
> But simply *using* cygwin (e.g. to compile some code that expects
> a Unix environment) for my own use should not taint the code.
> Is this not correct?

AFAIK and IANAL:
Depends.  If your code links to the Cygwin1.dll, which is GPLed, your code
becomes GPLed too.  If your code uses the MS run-time, it does not become
GPLed.  And the whole question is moot if you don't distribute your software
to others, but just build for your own use.

I believe "if you use Cygwin in an application" above, should be read as "if
your application uses the Cygwin1.dll".  There is nothing I am aware of in
the GPL that says you can't use GNU tools to build non-GNU software.  There
_is_ such a restriction on the use of GPLed _code_.  If you are simply using
the GNU compiler to compile code you have written, linked against non-GPLed
libraries, I see no issue.

> As a somewhat more realistic example, if I distribute source
> code under conditions other than the GPL, and suggest to users
> that they could use the cygwin package to compile my code on
> their Windows machine, would such a suggestion somehow make the
> source code free software?

The essense of free software is that the folks who use it _can_ get the
source code.  The essense of the GPL is that you will provide the source
code, and that you will _tell_ the people who use your application that you
will do so.  Most of the questions about the GPL here have taken the form of
"Do I have to distribute my source _with_ my application, or can I provide
it seperately?"  My understanding of the GPL is that you _can_ provide it
seperately, as long as you make clear to the users you _will_ do so, and
that you do so in a fashion convenient to the users.  Many folks don't
want/can't use the source, but those that do should be able to get it on
demand.

> ...thanks for any clarification....dac

I believe the above is accurate.  If not, I _know_ I will hear about it.

> David A. Case                     |  e-mail:      case@scripps.edu
_________________________
Dennis McCunney
mccunney@bellatlantic.net


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:11:58PM -0500, Dennis McCunney wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
>> [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of David Case
>> Sent: 2001. February 14. 21:23
>> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
>> Subject: Re: cygwin and GPL (again)
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >
>> > Btw, if you use Cygwin in an application, the application
>> > automatically becomes free software.  Just so you know.
>>
>> Just so *I* know, isn't the above oversimplified?
>
>Not exactly.
>
>> If I *distribute* an application linked to cygwin to others,
>> I am obliged to follow GPL-like rules for the whole application.\
>> But simply *using* cygwin (e.g. to compile some code that expects
>> a Unix environment) for my own use should not taint the code.
>> Is this not correct?
>
>AFAIK and IANAL:
>Depends.  If your code links to the Cygwin1.dll, which is GPLed, your code
>becomes GPLed too.  If your code uses the MS run-time, it does not become
>GPLed.  And the whole question is moot if you don't distribute your software
>to others, but just build for your own use.
>
>I believe "if you use Cygwin in an application" above, should be read as "if
>your application uses the Cygwin1.dll".  There is nothing I am aware of in
>the GPL that says you can't use GNU tools to build non-GNU software.  There
>_is_ such a restriction on the use of GPLed _code_.  If you are simply using
>the GNU compiler to compile code you have written, linked against non-GPLed
>libraries, I see no issue.
>
>> As a somewhat more realistic example, if I distribute source
>> code under conditions other than the GPL, and suggest to users
>> that they could use the cygwin package to compile my code on
>> their Windows machine, would such a suggestion somehow make the
>> source code free software?
>
>The essense of free software is that the folks who use it _can_ get the
>source code.  The essense of the GPL is that you will provide the source
>code, and that you will _tell_ the people who use your application that you
>will do so.  Most of the questions about the GPL here have taken the form of
>"Do I have to distribute my source _with_ my application, or can I provide
>it seperately?"  My understanding of the GPL is that you _can_ provide it
>seperately, as long as you make clear to the users you _will_ do so, and
>that you do so in a fashion convenient to the users.  Many folks don't
>want/can't use the source, but those that do should be able to get it on
>demand.
>
>> ...thanks for any clarification....dac
>
>I believe the above is accurate.  If not, I _know_ I will hear about it.

I'm still waiting for DJ (our resident GPL expert) to weigh in here, but
I believe that your interpretation is pretty much spot on.  You
accurately interpreted what I was saying and reworded what I said to
make it clearer.  Thanks.

I try to mention the Cygwin and the GPL fairly frequently because people
have professed surprise about it in the past.  Usually in this context,
I also point out that Red Hat does retain the copyright on Cygwin and we
do occasionally sell proprietary-use versions of it to people who are
scared of the GPL.  These licenses are part of what keeps the project
going, paradoxically enough.

Btw, I did oversimplify things slightly with respect to the Cygwin DLL
licensing terms.  I'm not going to go into details here but interested
parties can check out the "Licensing Terms" link at http://cygwin.com/ .

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[DJ Delorie]

> I'm still waiting for DJ (our resident GPL expert) to weigh in here, but
> I believe that your interpretation is pretty much spot on.  You
> accurately interpreted what I was saying and reworded what I said to
> make it clearer.  Thanks.

Oops, sorry, I was deep in a programming task.  Yup, what he said is
right.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

RE: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Dennis McCunney]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 2001. February 14. 22:36
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: cygwin and GPL (again)
>
> >> As a somewhat more realistic example, if I distribute source
> >> code under conditions other than the GPL, and suggest to users
> >> that they could use the cygwin package to compile my code on
> >> their Windows machine, would such a suggestion somehow make the
> >> source code free software?
> >
> >The essense of free software is that the folks who use it
> >_can_ get the source code.  The essense of the GPL is that
> >you will provide the source code, and that you will _tell_
> >the people who use your application that you will do so.
> >Most of the questions about the GPL here have taken the form
> >of "Do I have to distribute my source _with_ my application,
> >or can I provide it seperately?"  My understanding of the GPL
> >is that you _can_ provide it seperately, as long as you make
> >clear to the users you _will_ do so, and that you do so in a
> >fashion convenient to the users.  Many folks don't want/can't
> >use the source, but those that do should be able to get it on
> >demand.
> >
> >> ...thanks for any clarification....dac
> >
> >I believe the above is accurate.  If not, I _know_ I will
> >hear about it.
>
> I'm still waiting for DJ (our resident GPL expert) to weigh
> in here, but I believe that your interpretation is pretty much
> spot on.  You accurately interpreted what I was saying and
> reworded what I said to make it clearer.  Thanks.

You're quite welcome.  I _did_ read the GPL, and what I wrote reflects my
understanding of it.  It's nice to know I haven't lost _all_ ability to
comprehend what I read.

> I try to mention the Cygwin and the GPL fairly frequently
> because people have professed surprise about it in the past.
> Usually in this context, I also point out that Red Hat does
> retain the copyright on Cygwin and we do occasionally sell
> proprietary-use versions of it to people who are scared of
> the GPL.  These licenses are part of what keeps the project
> going, paradoxically enough.

I ignored some of the technicalities, like Red Hat's copyright, as
irrelevant to the main point and potentially confusing.  There _are_
technical differences between the various open source liscense terms that
can bite you, like the issues discussed here in the past that would prevent
some other open source packages from becoming part of the Cygwin
distribution per se.  (F'rinstance, I'd _love_ to see real ksh93 for Cygwin,
but I suspect AT&T Research's open source terms are far apart enough from
the GPL that you couldn't package a Cygwin port of it _with_ Cygwin.)

Speaking of which, IIRC, you get a message from the listbot when you
subscribe to this list.  Would it make sense to add a couple of paragraphs
to that message?  One would specify that the list is for Cygwin under
Windows discussion, and it's _not_ the right place to ask general Unix/Linux
questions.  The second would include some helpful URLs, for Cygwin and *nix
newbies to look for more information, before asking questions here.

It might cut down on some of the less topical questions.

>cgf

_________________________
Dennis McCunney
mccunney@bellatlantic.net


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 11:24:13PM -0500, Dennis McCunney wrote:
>Speaking of which, IIRC, you get a message from the listbot when you
>subscribe to this list.  Would it make sense to add a couple of paragraphs
>to that message?  One would specify that the list is for Cygwin under
>Windows discussion, and it's _not_ the right place to ask general Unix/Linux
>questions.  The second would include some helpful URLs, for Cygwin and *nix
>newbies to look for more information, before asking questions here.
>
>It might cut down on some of the less topical questions.

I suppose so.  I have reached a bemused/depressed state where I really can't
believe that this kind of thing is really necessary but it probably is.

If someone wants to contribute some words, I'll add them.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

RE: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Dennis McCunney]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 2001. February 14. 23:30
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: cygwin and GPL (again)
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 11:24:13PM -0500, Dennis McCunney wrote:
> >Speaking of which, IIRC, you get a message from the listbot when you
> >subscribe to this list.  Would it make sense to add a couple of
> >paragraphs to that message?  One would specify that the list is for
> >Cygwin under Windows discussion, and it's _not_ the right place to
> >ask general Unix/Linux questions.  The second would include some
> >helpful URLs, for Cygwin and *nix newbies to look for more
> >information, before asking questions here.
> >
> >It might cut down on some of the less topical questions.
>
> I suppose so.  I have reached a bemused/depressed state where
> I really can't believe that this kind of thing is really necessary
> but it probably is.

It's inevitable, really: as Cygwin grows more popular, more folks who
_aren't_ developers already familiar with *nix will grab it, and ask
*nix/programming newbie questions about it.  Making as clear as possible as
early as possible that this ain't the place to ask 'em can't hurt.  Cygwin
is for developers who need to port from *nix to NT, and want the familiar
tools and a POSIX layer to make it easier.  It implicitly assumes you know
various things.  If you don't, you'll get real confused, real fast.  This
needs to be stated up front.

> If someone wants to contribute some words, I'll add them.

I seem to be on a roll with this, so I'll do it.  Can you email me what the
listbot currently sends?  It's been some time since _I_ subscribed, and I
don't think I still have the welcome message.

> cgf
______
Dennis


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 11:50:06PM -0500, Dennis McCunney wrote:
>> >It might cut down on some of the less topical questions.
>>
>> I suppose so.  I have reached a bemused/depressed state where
>> I really can't believe that this kind of thing is really necessary
>> but it probably is.
>
>It's inevitable, really: as Cygwin grows more popular, more folks who
>_aren't_ developers already familiar with *nix will grab it, and ask
>*nix/programming newbie questions about it.

Oh yes, don't get me wrong.  I've been involved in Usenet for 17 years
or so, so I know how the games goes.  I still find it depressing that
the modus operandi for so very many people is to start firing away with
questions before taking stock of things.

The problem is that this mailing list is becoming increasingly less
interesting to me personally.  It was actually stimulating to see people
discussing how to speed up stat().  However, those kind of discussions
are drowned out by "My ssh doesn't work! I tried everything! Help!"
messages and this is not going to ever improve here.  Ever.

>Making as clear as possible as early as possible that this ain't the
>place to ask 'em can't hurt.  Cygwin is for developers who need to port
>from *nix to NT, and want the familiar tools and a POSIX layer to make
>it easier.  It implicitly assumes you know various things.  If you
>don't, you'll get real confused, real fast.  This needs to be stated up
>front.

Yeah, but pessimistically speaking, I'll bet that it will have only a
minor effect.  The problem is that people don't care to read what is in
front of them until they have a problem.  By the time they have a
problem, the welcome message will be in the trash can.

But, if a change to the welome message helps even a few people, it
is worth it.

>> If someone wants to contribute some words, I'll add them.
>
>I seem to be on a roll with this, so I'll do it.  Can you email me what the
>listbot currently sends?  It's been some time since _I_ subscribed, and I
>don't think I still have the welcome message.

Here it is (not to wordy, is it?):

Acknowledgment: I have added the address

!A

to the <#l#> mailing list.

Welcome to <#l#>@cygwin.com!

Please save this message so that you know the address you are
subscribed under, in case you later want to unsubscribe or change your
subscription address.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

RE: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Dennis McCunney]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 2001. February 15. 0:00
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: cygwin and GPL (again)
>
> >> I suppose so.  I have reached a bemused/depressed state where
> >> I really can't believe that this kind of thing is really necessary
> >> but it probably is.
> >
> >It's inevitable, really: as Cygwin grows more popular, more folks who
> >_aren't_ developers already familiar with *nix will grab it, and ask
> >*nix/programming newbie questions about it.
>
> Oh yes, don't get me wrong.  I've been involved in Usenet for 17 years
> or so, so I know how the games goes.  I still find it depressing that
> the modus operandi for so very many people is to start firing
> away with questions before taking stock of things.

I've seen it in various forums for that long.  One message area I was active
in at one point had a one page mini-rules message that was posted _every
day_, with the basic info on what the area was about, who the contacts were,
and what was on-topic for the area. It _did_ help.

I've answered a few of the "new to Cygwin" questions privately as soon as I
saw them, simply to cut down on some of the clutter.

> The problem is that this mailing list is becoming increasingly less
> interesting to me personally.  It was actually stimulating to see people
> discussing how to speed up stat().  However, those kind of discussions
> are drowned out by "My ssh doesn't work! I tried everything! Help!"
> messages and this is not going to ever improve here.  Ever.

Nope, but if a canned response can be developed that can be posted as
boiler-plate whenever such a question arises, it might mean less wear and
tear on those trying to assist.

Another that bemuses me is the apparent fog that descends, where people
forget that private email still exists.  This especially seems to happen
when someone takes personal exception to someone else's statements on a
list, and just has to make a _public_ fuss.  I always thought that's what
email was for...

> >Making as clear as possible as early as possible that this ain't the
> >place to ask 'em can't hurt.  Cygwin is for developers who need to port
> >from *nix to NT, and want the familiar tools and a POSIX layer to make
> >it easier.  It implicitly assumes you know various things.  If you
> >don't, you'll get real confused, real fast.  This needs to be stated up
> >front.
>
> Yeah, but pessimistically speaking, I'll bet that it will have only a
> minor effect.  The problem is that people don't care to read what is in
> front of them until they have a problem.  By the time they have a
> problem, the welcome message will be in the trash can.

The technology to digitize a two by four to whack 'em with does not yet
exist, alas...

> But, if a change to the welome message helps even a few people, it
> is worth it.

We can but try.

> >> If someone wants to contribute some words, I'll add them.
> >
> >I seem to be on a roll with this, so I'll do it.  Can you
> email me what the listbot currently sends?  It's been some time since _I_
> subscribed, and I don't think I still have the welcome message.
>
> Here it is (not to wordy, is it?):

Nope.  Very minimalist.  I'll try to get you some revisions soon.  That may
not be till Tuesday, since I'm taking a long weekend, but I ought to have it
by then.

> cgf
______
Dennis


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Rank Newbie Qustion [Was: Re: cygwin and GPL (again)]

[David A. Cobb]

Some of us (or some of me) haven't used X'nix in years so we
do need to ask real stupid questions somewhere.  Could one of
you kind folk point me to where I can ask them without getting
my asbestos undies on?

Tia,
David

Dennis McCunney wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
> > [ mailto:cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of
> > Christopher Faylor
> > Sent: 2001. February 15. 0:00
> > To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> > Subject: Re: cygwin and GPL (again)
> >
> > >> I suppose so.  I have reached a bemused/depressed state where
> > >> I really can't believe that this kind of thing is really necessary
> > >> but it probably is.
> > >
> > >It's inevitable, really: as Cygwin grows more popular, more folks who
> > >_aren't_ developers already familiar with *nix will grab it, and ask
> > >*nix/programming newbie questions about it.
> >
> > Oh yes, don't get me wrong.  I've been involved in Usenet for 17 years
> > or so, so I know how the games goes.  I still find it depressing that
> > the modus operandi for so very many people is to start firing
> > away with questions before taking stock of things.
>
> I've seen it in various forums for that long.  One message area I was active
> in at one point had a one page mini-rules message that was posted _every
> day_, with the basic info on what the area was about, who the contacts were,
> and what was on-topic for the area. It _did_ help.
>
> I've answered a few of the "new to Cygwin" questions privately as soon as I
> saw them, simply to cut down on some of the clutter.
>
> > The problem is that this mailing list is becoming increasingly less
> > interesting to me personally.  It was actually stimulating to see people
> > discussing how to speed up stat().  However, those kind of discussions
> > are drowned out by "My ssh doesn't work! I tried everything! Help!"
> > messages and this is not going to ever improve here.  Ever.
>
> Nope, but if a canned response can be developed that can be posted as
> boiler-plate whenever such a question arises, it might mean less wear and
> tear on those trying to assist.
>
> Another that bemuses me is the apparent fog that descends, where people
> forget that private email still exists.  This especially seems to happen
> when someone takes personal exception to someone else's statements on a
> list, and just has to make a _public_ fuss.  I always thought that's what
> email was for...
>
> > >Making as clear as possible as early as possible that this ain't the
> > >place to ask 'em can't hurt.  Cygwin is for developers who need to port
> > >from *nix to NT, and want the familiar tools and a POSIX layer to make
> > >it easier.  It implicitly assumes you know various things.  If you
> > >don't, you'll get real confused, real fast.  This needs to be stated up
> > >front.
> >
> > Yeah, but pessimistically speaking, I'll bet that it will have only a
> > minor effect.  The problem is that people don't care to read what is in
> > front of them until they have a problem.  By the time they have a
> > problem, the welcome message will be in the trash can.
>
> The technology to digitize a two by four to whack 'em with does not yet
> exist, alas...
>
> > But, if a change to the welome message helps even a few people, it
> > is worth it.
>
> We can but try.
>
> > >> If someone wants to contribute some words, I'll add them.
> > >
> > >I seem to be on a roll with this, so I'll do it.  Can you
> > email me what the listbot currently sends?  It's been some time since _I_
> > subscribed, and I don't think I still have the welcome message.
> >
> > Here it is (not to wordy, is it?):
>
> Nope.  Very minimalist.  I'll try to get you some revisions soon.  That may
> not be till Tuesday, since I'm taking a long weekend, but I ought to have it
> by then.
>
> > cgf
> ______
> Dennis
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: Rank Newbie Qustion [Was: Re: cygwin and GPL (again)]

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 04:18:54PM -0500, David A. Cobb wrote:
>Some of us (or some of me) haven't used X'nix in years so we do need to
>ask real stupid questions somewhere.  Could one of you kind folk point
>me to where I can ask them without getting my asbestos undies on?

Scan the mailing list archives for the last week.  Look for the word
"newbie".  This has *just* been discussed.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Jesper Eskilson]

Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:

> The problem is that this mailing list is becoming increasingly less
> interesting to me personally.  It was actually stimulating to see people
> discussing how to speed up stat().  

But isn't that a topic for the cygwin-developers list?

/J
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesper Eskilson                                         jojo@virtutech.se
Virtutech                                         http://www.virtutech.se
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Jonathan Kamens]

>  From: Jesper Eskilson <jojo@virtutech.se>
>  Date: 15 Feb 2001 10:27:27 +0100
>  
>  Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:
>  
>  > The problem is that this mailing list is becoming increasingly less
>  > interesting to me personally.  It was actually stimulating to see people
>  > discussing how to speed up stat().  
>  
>  But isn't that a topic for the cygwin-developers list?

After reading the descriptions of the cygwin and cygwin-developers
list, I got the distinct impression that I don't belong on the
cygwin-developers list.  And yet I needed to have this discussion with
people.

I am not a cygwin developer.  I don't want to be a cygwin developer.
All I want to be able to do is make cygwin work as reliably and as
fast as possible for my coworkers and me.  If that means that
occasionally I have to go digging into the source code, so be it, but
that doesn't make me a cygwin developer, at least not according to the
description on the Web site.

  jik

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[DJ Delorie]

> After reading the descriptions of the cygwin and cygwin-developers
> list, I got the distinct impression that I don't belong on the
> cygwin-developers list.

Perhaps it's time to reconsider the purposes of the lists?  I would be
happy to treat the cygwin-developer list as appropriate for any topic
about the internals or improvement of the cygwin runtime or support
files (including documentation, and people interested in learning
about the internals for the purposes of porting to cygwin), and leave
the cygwin list for people who are just using the runtime, without
interest in how it works.  The DJGPP lists work like this.

The cygwin-apps list would then be for people to discuss the porting
of apps to cygwin, when it doesn't involve knowing too much about the
internals of the cygwin runtime itself.  We should expect crossover
anyway, but it's easier to be lenient than try to define the
boundaries of the lists too precisely.

As for keeping things on-topic, it's easy enough to politely say "this
discussion belongs on [foo], please move it there" (if it's a faq,
along with an answer, if possible ;) than to start holy wars about
list topics.

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: cygwin and GPL (again)

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:27:27AM +0100, Jesper Eskilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> The problem is that this mailing list is becoming increasingly less
>> interesting to me personally.  It was actually stimulating to see people
>> discussing how to speed up stat().  
>
>But isn't that a topic for the cygwin-developers list?

Anything cygwin-related is appropriate here.  If we start seeing a lot
of internals discussion, I might consider opening up cygwin-developers
after I regain consciousness.

I really really do not want to open up cygwin-developers to people who
think that it is a personal pipeline for getting their questions answered.
I regularly get indignant queries from people who insist that their questions
are appropriate because they are interested in porting their application
to cygwin and have some questions about internals.  I would rather keep
cygwin-developers as a low-volume list populated with knowledgeable people.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple