Re: CYGWIN 2.8

[cyg Simple <cygsimple@gmail.com>]

On 5/14/2018 3:29 PM, Lee wrote:
> On 5/14/18, cyg Simple   wrote:
>> On 5/8/2018 3:28 PM, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>>> Am 08.05.2018 um 13:22 schrieb David Spencer:
>>>> Morning,
>>>>
>>>> I am trying to get CYGWIN Version 2.8, this is the only version
>>>> approved for our system at present,
>>
>> So your company is stating it wants to use buggy and susceptible
>> applications.  I don't think so.
> 
> And I don't think you've ever experienced the joys of being a USG contractor :)
> 

Thank the heavens, I have not; however, I have been a contractor where
the contracting firm places the same restrictions on it's employees but
that doesn't matter.

> Go back to the original post & look at their email address.  I'm
> betting they're a contractor.
> 

So what!  If you follow the correct policies and don't come off crass in
your request to install software to get the work done then it shouldn't
be too difficult.

>>  Go back to the IT security team and
>> state that 2.10 is the latest version of Cygwin and ask if it is okay.
> 
> Which is assuming that whatever person on the IT security team you ask
> has the authority to override policy.  Staff _follows_ policy, they
> don't make it.
> 

Yes, I should have worded it slightly better, you must follow the
official process of getting the approved list updated.

>> If not then ask them to provide you with a suitable version.
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that contractors are allowed to
> make waves and stay employed there.
> 

I worked as a contractor for many years, now retired, and "made waves"
successfully by being thorough in what I was stating with facts.  If you
prove that you know what you're talking about then people listen even to
contractors.

>>> Providing that is, to a great extent, actually the job of whoever
>>> approves versions of Cygwin for you.
> 
> I'd say it's the job of whoever came up with the policy of having an
> 'approved software' list in the first place to also come up with a
> policy of keeping the list current but whatever..
> 

Perhaps but I'm guessing the policy creator may no longer be around to
improve the policy.  It's now up to a department of people to make those
changes.

> 
> It'd be nice to think the situation has changed in the years since I
> was in the same position but apparently not.  What worked for me was
> opening a support ticket with the group that keeps the approved
> software list and asking what it takes to get the current version of
> cygwin approved.
> 
> There's forms to be filled out, procedures to be followed, and in a
> few weeks the current version of cygwin is on the approved list.
> 

Yes, exactly there are forms to be filled out but that doesn't mean
those forms just be filled out and not followed up by other communication.

-- 
cyg Simple

--
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