From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 101043 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2019 15:51:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 101032 invoked by uid 89); 27 Feb 2019 15:51:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=scientific, smooth, ear, who's X-HELO: mail-io1-f52.google.com Received: from mail-io1-f52.google.com (HELO mail-io1-f52.google.com) (209.85.166.52) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:51:14 +0000 Received: by mail-io1-f52.google.com with SMTP id e186so13947391ioa.0 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 07:51:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=hYQL4vcfM6KGJ7BzRdyETNZ08sodJBhB3aeF6m9U6DA=; b=NSREFl8TbZAI7f/DrIcT9o4FiMlKjM1dlFnYpdlRszS+Y26MowHYoYD4SUj01/7pl6 ZOW9mqjFlDahvLMwr+APYS5X0lBXNWbAZvgstdIKxgeD7qwzr+7D5ksMZ/boqOJj6nMT eOy97N5LYuTcAVUmU0XC9UMdlWn7wD24ahMSuYSwkUG8HiJ8VVCHySwhlJF5D4iSMHqY YBOSe3kJw87Xp7m0NFY2W8LC7Ah+TGCBPiNy3K0bjf0BjT1aEz/bY/691gAhcG2F5VW6 Bf3RirqsrB7uKkmXMfmdO2aaQbcON5+r3yYyQTvkg7aaXZkwOPbvD8nQJrYQzPfHlZA1 z4/w== MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5c7607bb.1c69fb81.ce2c0.65ce@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <5c7607bb.1c69fb81.ce2c0.65ce@mx.google.com> From: "E. Madison Bray" Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:17:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cygwin 3.0.1-1 Breaks ALL cygwin applications on Windows 7 x64 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-02/txt/msg00482.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:45 AM Steven Penny wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 19:21:15, "Jerry Baker via cygwin" wrote: > > Well I guess it's a good thing there's only one possible state of > > Windows 7 x64 which allows us to determine that there's no possibility > > of a bug simply by running a single instance in one VM. We're going to > > turn the world of unit testing on its ear with this information. > > correct, multiple states are possible. this is why the scientific method defines > a control: > > https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control > > in this case that would be a clean virtual machine. if you cant or wont do that, > then you must understand that you only have yourself to blame. I understand this thread has been heated, and it hasn't been just you who's been impatient by any means. But maybe it will help smooth things over by avoiding words like "blame" and finger pointing. If someone has a broken Cygwin on their system that works on other, similar systems it's not necessarily the user who's to "tlame". Yes, PEBKAC is always a possibility, but since you mentioned the scientific method I'll just add that we have no evidence of that either. Windows, much someone's working installation of Windows (which can have a lot more going on on it than a fresh VM) is an enormously complex system, and it's entirely possible that Cygwin is *broken* on that particular configuration through no fault of the user. Unfortunately, without concrete steps to reproduce the problem, the rest of us can only speculate. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple