basename(), dirname(), what happened?

basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Gerrit P. Haase]

Hallo Elfyn,

I found a thread from January about these two functions.  Are they
included in the meantime?


Gerrit
-- 
=^..^=


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Elfyn McBratney]

Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> Hallo Elfyn,
> 
> I found a thread from January about these two functions.  Are they
> included in the meantime?

Nope.  I was working on implementing there libgen functions as I had a
need for them in application where they were a) not availabe and b) I
could not use the *BSD/[L]GPL versions.

I believe Nicholas Worums was working (or still is working) on importing
them into newlib, at least that's how I read a post of his on
cygwin-patches, IIRC.

I would do this myself, but I have committed myself to far too much, and
even simple things like this just get left on the back-burner.

-- Elfyn

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Gerrit P. Haase]

Hello Elfyn,

>> I found a thread from January about these two functions.  Are they
>> included in the meantime?

> Nope.  I was working on implementing there libgen functions as I had a
> need for them in application where they were a) not availabe and b) I
> could not use the *BSD/[L]GPL versions.

Why are the *BSD versions not usable?

> I believe Nicholas Worums was working (or still is working) on importing
> them into newlib, at least that's how I read a post of his on
> cygwin-patches, IIRC.

> I would do this myself, but I have committed myself to far too much, and
> even simple things like this just get left on the back-burner.

No problem, I need also 24 more hours a day;)


Gerrit
-- 
=^..^=


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Elfyn McBratney]

Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> Hello Elfyn,
> 
> >> I found a thread from January about these two functions.  Are they
> >> included in the meantime?
> 
> > Nope.  I was working on implementing there libgen functions as I had a
> > need for them in application where they were a) not availabe and b) I
> > could not use the *BSD/[L]GPL versions.
> 
> Why are the *BSD versions not usable?

Where I was working at the time, they we're afraid of "free software".  Some
people, eh?

> > I believe Nicholas Worums was working (or still is working) on importing
> > them into newlib, at least that's how I read a post of his on
> > cygwin-patches, IIRC.
> 
> > I would do this myself, but I have committed myself to far too much, and
> > even simple things like this just get left on the back-burner.
> 
> No problem, I need also 24 more hours a day;)

-- Elfyn

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 12:20:04PM +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> Where I was working at the time, they we're afraid of "free software".  Some
> people, eh?
Actually, that kind of fear is probably more common that you thingk: where I 
work, people are afraid of free software too, for two reasons: licensing ("Am
I obliged to liberate my software because I use grep in one of the setup 
scripts?") and quality assurance ("At least there's a big company behind it
that has the (legal) responsability for the quality of the program..")

The fact that the quality of FSF software such as gcc is often a lot better 
than the Microsoft-equivalent (MSVC) doesn't seem to bother them much..

rlc
-- 
One man's constant is another man's variable.
		-- A.J. Perlis

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Shankar Unni]

Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:

> ("At least there's a big company behind it
> that has the (legal) responsability for the quality of the program..")

ROTFLMAO.

What legal responsibility? I hope you have pointed these fine folks to
the appropriate sections of the so-called "License Agreements" (i.e. "we
agree that you will accept these terms, or you won't use the program"),
which specifically shirks all responsibility for any and all mayhem
caused by the program..



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Shankar Unni]

But all silliness aside, there's a very good point to the seeming
extremes that the Cygwin project in particular, and the FSF in general,
go in order to protect the code base by ensuring the true freedom of
their sources.

I give you the Linux mess, as exhibit #1.



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 06:46:59PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote:
> Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> 
> > ("At least there's a big company behind it
> > that has the (legal) responsability for the quality of the program..")
> 
> ROTFLMAO.
??

> What legal responsibility? I hope you have pointed these fine folks to
> the appropriate sections of the so-called "License Agreements" (i.e. "we
> agree that you will accept these terms, or you won't use the program"),
> which specifically shirks all responsibility for any and all mayhem
> caused by the program..
You'd be amazed how important "responsability" is in France but yes, I've 
pointed out the lack of legal responsibility.. The thing is, it's very 
important (here, in France) to be able to say "I had nothing to do with it - 
I swear!"..

rlc

-- 
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy,
But it's very funny -- did you ever try buying them without money?
		-- Ogden Nash

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 10:48:37AM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 06:46:59PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote:
> > What legal responsibility? I hope you have pointed these fine folks to
> > the appropriate sections of the so-called "License Agreements" (i.e. "we
> > agree that you will accept these terms, or you won't use the program"),
> > which specifically shirks all responsibility for any and all mayhem
> > caused by the program..
> You'd be amazed how important "responsability" is in France but yes, I've 
> pointed out the lack of legal responsibility.. The thing is, it's very 
> important (here, in France) to be able to say "I had nothing to do with it - 
> I swear!"..

Old mgmt rule.  Whatever happens, you must ensure that you have somebody
to blame and sue for it.

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Andrew DeFaria]

Shankar Unni wrote:

> Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
>
>> ("At least there's a big company behind it that has the (legal) 
>> responsability for the quality of the program..")
>
> ROTFLMAO.
>
> What legal responsibility? I hope you have pointed these fine folks to 
> the appropriate sections of the so-called "License Agreements" (i.e. 
> "we agree that you will accept these terms, or you won't use the 
> program"), which specifically shirks all responsibility for any and 
> all mayhem caused by the program..

They may not have the responsibility of the mayhem that is caused but I 
think they can still be held responsible for basic product liability 
like "works as advertised". IOW the consumer should be able to expect 
that a tire will "work" on his car. Now we all know that some tires will 
fail due to problems and generally tire companies will replace the tire 
however they are not responsible for the mayhem that may have resulted 
(unless some smart lawyer can prove negligence).



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

New OLOCA entry (was Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?)

[Shankar Unni]

Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:

>> ROTFLMAO.
> ??

wtf(rotfl) + My A** Off.



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Re: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Andrew DeFaria]

Hughes, Bill wrote:

> Even worse are the newer ones, which basically say: "This software may 
> not work, tough. Even if it does work it may not work properly and 
> corrupt all your data, tough. You also agree to let us change the 
> software without telling you even though this may corrupt all your 
> data. Still tough. You don't get to complain or sue us."

And the other new ones that have something akin to the following in 
their license agreement ( ;-) ):

> ***********************************************************************
> This e-mail transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely 
> for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain 
> privileged and confidential information and if you are not the 
> intendedrecipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in 
> relianceon it. If you have received this email in error, please reply 
> to the sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note 
> that we are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail 
> communications passing through our network.
>
> The views expressed in this email are not that of the company unless 
> specified within the message.
>
> The inclusion of this footnote indicates that the mail message and any 
> attachments have been checked for the presence of known viruses.
>
> If you have any comments regarding our policy please direct them to 
> postmaster@cox.co.uk
> ***********************************************************************



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

RE: basename(), dirname(), what happened?

[Hughes, Bill]

> Sent: 02 September 2003 09:49 From: Ronald Landheer-Cieslak 
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 06:46:59PM -0700, Shankar Unni wrote:
> > Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > 
> > > ("At least there's a big company behind it
> > > that has the (legal) responsability for the quality of the program..")
> > 
> > ROTFLMAO.
> ??
>
> > What legal responsibility? I hope you have pointed these fine folks to
> > the appropriate sections of the so-called "License Agreements" (i.e. "we
> > agree that you will accept these terms, or you won't use the program"),
> > which specifically shirks all responsibility for any and all mayhem
> > caused by the program..
> You'd be amazed how important "responsability" is in France but yes, I've 
> pointed out the lack of legal responsibility.. The thing is, it's very 
> important (here, in France) to be able to say "I had nothing to do with it
- 
> I swear!"..
Even worse are the newer ones, which basically say:
"This software may not work, tough. Even if it does work it may not work
properly and corrupt all your data, tough. You also agree to let us change
the software without telling you even though this may corrupt all your data.
Still tough. You don't get to complain or sue us."


***********************************************************************
This e-mail transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely 
for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain 
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance
on it. If you have received this email in error, please reply to the 
sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we 
are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications 
passing through our network.

The views expressed in this email are not that of the company unless 
specified within the message.

The inclusion of this footnote indicates that the mail message and any
attachments have been checked for the presence of known viruses.

If you have any comments regarding our policy please direct them to 
postmaster@cox.co.uk
***********************************************************************

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/