Re: Cygwin Performance and stat()

["Matthias Andree" <matthias dot andree at gmx dot de>]

Am 06.06.2010, 01:16 Uhr, schrieb Christopher Wingert:

> > I do think out loud with my "team".  You are not on it.
>
> Agreed!  You would rather spend your time ridiculing any possible  
> solution.

If only there had been a solution, rather than a loose collection of names  
(I wouldn't even dare call that ideas) dropped where the Cygwin  
maintainers - likely based on prior experience - couldn't see how it could  
have provided all mandatory fields for a POSIX compliant (and no less!)  
f?stat().

> This is what lead to my initial reluctance to do any patch for Cygwin
> software.

<sarcasm>
A nice way to express that your patch would not stand scrutiny against  
POSIX anyways.
</sarcasm>

But seriously, Christopher Faylor has been trying to get to a technical  
discussion, where you avoided his arguments and produced new names of way  
to solve things again, so let me say this:

If you think your post makes you a member of some core team, then you're  
expecting too much. And this isn't specific to Cygwin.  You need to build  
trust, and that is not achieved by bitching at people and their products,  
but by answering technical concerns.

Meaning that: even if I'm only a Cygwin user, and I'm sometimes  
disappointed by how slow it is, too, I'm sort of convinced there isn't a  
cheaper way to get all the required information.


And I for one can configure my virus scanner to scan on write or  
execution, rather than on every read.  I can also configure which types of  
files it's going to scan.  For starters, you might try that...

--
Matthias Andree

--
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