This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-xfree
mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.
Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Pechtchanski" <pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu>
To: <cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Stephen P. Harris wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Pechtchanski" <pechtcha@XX.XXX.XXX>
To: <cygwin-xfree@XXXXXX.XXX>
<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR>.
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Stephen P. Harris wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@XXXXXX.XXX>
> > To: <cygwin-xfree@XXXXXX.XXX>
>
> <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR>.
>
> > [snip]
> > SH: So change the FAQ and the name of the mailing list. Why is
> > your sayso tobe considered authoritative and the FAQ dismissed?
> >
> > [snip]
> > 1) You display either ignorance of the FAQ or presume that others
> > should regard your interpretation of the FAQ as superior to that doc.
>
> See <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#CGF>.
SH: That may be, but how am I to know that? The FAQ says:
I am going to edit the order of this post a bit to get
to your reply to this question.
Igor wrote: Cygwin users should try reading the mailing list archives to
see
if any documentation is out of date. If they don't read the archives,
they
should not be surprised when FAQ errors are pointed out to them on the
mailing lists. If they are surprised or offended by the documentation
being out of date, they can return the product for a full refund.
This sounds like a reasonable approach. The new user, accustomed to
finding needed information in FAQs, intuitively recognizes the superior
approach used by Cygwin; read the FAQ, investigate the hierarchy of
Cygwin honchos, make a list of important issues, and cross-index these
issues against the several thousands of post created by these leaders
who exercise a type of papal authority paying particular attention to
the dates of the posts in case somebody with higher authority decides
to establish a new guideline. Yes, quite a reasonable expectation.
No, the point is that the FAQ *does* need to be amended, but
<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#SHTDI>. Unless someone volunteers their time
to make changes to the FAQ, this isn't going to happen.
SH: Igor, bring up titles does not refute evidence of a written
contradiction in policy. Your point about qualifications does nothing to
rebut my point that the policies are contradictory. Do you think you
make the point that such contradictions are ok, depending on who makes
them?
Yes, precisely. The point I make is that Chris, by the virtue of being
the project leader, is the ultimate authority on all things Cygwin. If he
contradicts the FAQ, then the FAQ is wrong. By contradicting it publicly,
the issue is now on the mailing lists, and there is a chance that someone
will volunteer their time to produce the corrections to the FAQ (which,
BTW, Chris does not maintain).
If Chris is project leader, then ultimately he is responsible for the
consistency of the project. Do you mean there is no specified
FAQ maintainer? Nobody for CFG to direct to this task?
This reflects on the priority assigned to documentation. You appear
to describing a Linux-like apathy for documentation. Did you know
that poor documentation is regarded by most of world as a major
reason Linux has floundered. Eric Raymond's article does not rescue this.
This attitude is going to isolate Cygwin into a virtual game for
intellectuals.
You are replying to an imaginary issue, his qualifications, rather than
my point which is that the statements are contradictory.
I do not dispute that his statements are contradictory. What I was trying
to tell you by showing you his qualifications is that if he contradicts
the FAQ, he's most probably right.
That is likely so. But I think it is negligent to expect to expect new users
to research the qualifcations of posters, especially to discover if they
have a privileged status. I suppose we will not agree on this. The long
term members of the list will agree with you, but most others will
adhere to an ethical principle of principles before personalities.
And so on. I do think CFG should not make statements contradictory to
the FAQ, or assume the responsibility of editing the FAQ so that it does
not mislead users; not when you push reading the documentation.
Again, Cygwin is a volunteer-run project. Until the Cygwin FAQ maintainer
has the time to take CGF's statements and incorporate them into the FAQ,
the FAQ will be out of date. FAQ updates do happen occasionally, and this
information will likely find its way into the FAQ at some point. Nobody
knows when.
Oh, there is a Cygwin FAQ maintainer? Why isn't he/she doing their job?
Why doesn't CFG notice this? Your solution is that the newcomer who
was belittled for not being aware of CFG's policy decisions should
volunteer to search the archives and take notes from CFG's posts and
then change the FAQ to be in accordance with them.
Instead of complaining that the FAQ is out of date, you can help the cause
by coming up with the proper wording and creating a patch against the FAQ
sources (which are publicly available in CVS). You don't even need a
copyright assignment for this, IIRC. It would make the FAQ maintainer's
job much easier, and is likely to bring those particular FAQ entries
up-to-date sooner. If you are unwilling to do that, you cannot demand
that someone else spend their time doing it.
Igor
Again you escalate what I said in order to reply to an imaginary issue.
It is called making a strawman argument which is similar to equivocation.
I did not demand that somebody else spend their time to do it. If there
is a project leader, documentation comes under his/her purview, or
failing that, to the individual who has volunteered to maintain the FAQ.
You think a better idea is that somebody new to Cygwin takes over
updating the FAQ after that newbie is chastised for reading the FAQ
instead of a mass of personal pronouncements found in the archives.
Did you want to make the FAQ into a Wiki? You have attempted to
make a clever argument but I find it a bit sadly humorous.
You are going to get your way, though. I will immediately
unsubscribe from this list. It is really obvious that I don't fit it.
I subscribed to his list because it was advertised as dealing with
X11 issues including Xfree and the FAQ says these issues don't
belown on the main Cygwin mailing list. Yet the authorities
regularly cross-post between mailing lists.
The rationale goes right over my head unless it is the do as
I say not as I do syndrome a species of romance addiction.
A la proclaime,
Stephen
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor@watson.ibm.com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA