* Re: Outlaw Cygwin Install
[not found] <4.3.1.2.20020423162731.0276d7b0@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
@ 2002-04-23 19:00 ` rich-paul
2002-04-23 20:12 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: rich-paul @ 2002-04-23 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc), cygwin
> That works so long as the users come to that site to install and that site
> for support of the install. The current Cygwin policy is to offer email
> "support" for software it distributes. It's impractical to do otherwise.
> Also, the hope is that people who want to add features to anything Cygwin
> offers will do so in the context of the existing facilities. In this case,
> the desire is that people will enhance setup vs making some home-grown thing.
> This list would obviously entertain questions on install issues from the
> Cygwin distributed setup, no matter what functionality it has. So the
> policy that you see as being not liberal enough is one that merely attempts
> to keep the group focused both in a software development sense and in a
> support sense. It doesn't exclude functionality. It just seeks to add it
> in the framework that exists already. I hope that makes some sense to you.
>
Sure. I don't have a problem with the list policy. If somebody
got one of my products, hacked or misused it, and then tried to
get me to fix 'bugs', I wouldn't be too friendly. That's why I
thought a separate list for unsupported uses might be in order. I
didn't intend to criticize.
The reasons I didn't contribute what I'd done back to cygwin are
pretty clear if you've read the thing: It's a butt ugly hack,
and it's not really general. It does exactly what I need, but I
suspect that most people don't need that. Actually, there's a
third reason, which is that when I use this hack, I install a
great deal of non-cygwin software that I have no right to
distribute or contribute, so even if somebody did put similar
functionality into setup.exe, I would probably have to continue
to do an ugly hack on my own.
--
Got freedom? Vote Libertarian: http://www.lp.org
--
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] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Outlaw Cygwin Install
2002-04-23 19:00 ` Outlaw Cygwin Install rich-paul
@ 2002-04-23 20:12 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) @ 2002-04-23 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rich-paul, cygwin
At 09:02 PM 4/23/2002, rich-paul@rich-paul.net wrote:
> > That works so long as the users come to that site to install and that site
> > for support of the install. The current Cygwin policy is to offer email
> > "support" for software it distributes. It's impractical to do otherwise.
> > Also, the hope is that people who want to add features to anything Cygwin
> > offers will do so in the context of the existing facilities. In this case,
> > the desire is that people will enhance setup vs making some home-grown thing.
> > This list would obviously entertain questions on install issues from the
> > Cygwin distributed setup, no matter what functionality it has. So the
> > policy that you see as being not liberal enough is one that merely attempts
> > to keep the group focused both in a software development sense and in a
> > support sense. It doesn't exclude functionality. It just seeks to add it
> > in the framework that exists already. I hope that makes some sense to you.
> >
>
>Sure. I don't have a problem with the list policy. If somebody
>got one of my products, hacked or misused it, and then tried to
>get me to fix 'bugs', I wouldn't be too friendly. That's why I
>thought a separate list for unsupported uses might be in order. I
>didn't intend to criticize.
>
>The reasons I didn't contribute what I'd done back to cygwin are
>pretty clear if you've read the thing: It's a butt ugly hack,
>and it's not really general. It does exactly what I need, but I
>suspect that most people don't need that. Actually, there's a
>third reason, which is that when I use this hack, I install a
>great deal of non-cygwin software that I have no right to
>distribute or contribute, so even if somebody did put similar
>functionality into setup.exe, I would probably have to continue
>to do an ugly hack on my own.
Sounds fair to me.
Larry Hall lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
--
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] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-04-24 1:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <4.3.1.2.20020423162731.0276d7b0@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
2002-04-23 19:00 ` Outlaw Cygwin Install rich-paul
2002-04-23 20:12 ` Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
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).