Re: maintaining bash

[Warren Young <warren at etr-usa dot com>]

David Dindorp wrote:
> Jokes aside, I can't respond to the fact that you don't believe
> a word I say with anything else than "you obviously don't have
> a clue".

Chris wasn't saying he didn't believe anything you say.  Chris has 
infinitely more credibility when it comes to judgements of Cygwin 
complexity than you, and he simply indicated that he believes your claim 
was wrong.  It's unfortunate that you were insulted to have this pointed 
out to you, but it's true.

> I've no idea whether you snort because it's more or it's less complex,

It's clearly less complex.  Linux is an operating system.  Cygwin is a 
shell on top of an operating system; a rather thick shell in places, but 
just a shell nevertheless.

One might argue that Win32+Cygwin is more complex than Linux, but that's 
really academic, because the Win32 part isn't open to change.  It's a 
constant in the function, so when differentiating it (i.e. finding the 
complexity slope) it goes to zero.

--
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/