installer improvements

Dave Korn dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com
Wed Apr 7 17:32:00 GMT 2010


On 07/04/2010 13:18, wefwef wefwef wrote:

> Nice explanation if it was actually true, but it's just an assumption
> you have made, based on your opinion that the cygwin installer is
> flawless.

  LOL, are you having some kind of identity crisis?  It was *you* who said
that, remember?  It was a rhetorical exaggeration you made up in order to
misrepresent what I was saying in order to start an argument so that you could
divert attention away from the topic of the other thread, which was whether or
not one very specific bug did or did not exist.

  Nobody else has said anything like it at any time.  It's only you: it's your
standard response to anyone who disagrees with you about anything.  Do you
know what a "False dilemma", or "Fallacy of the excluded middle" is?  It's a
logical fallacy of the form "Either you believe setup.exe has bug X, or you
believe setup.exe is perfect and has no bugs at all".  Of course that's not
remotely true, there are many other possibilities, such as believing that
setup.exe has other bugs but not bug X.  Do you know what a "straw man"
argument is?  Do you know what the words "specious", "misrepresentation", and
"sophistry" mean?

  You'll need to familiarise yourself with all those terms if you're going to
carry on using this line of argument.

> Cygwin are obviously convinced that their software is perfect and will
> ignore anyone who implies otherwise.

  Who exactly is "Cygwin"?  An invisible friend of yours?  PROTIP: If it seems
like the whole world is against you, it's not because there's a conspiracy,
it's because they've all independently reached the conclusion that you're a
dufus because you actually are a dufus.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
The dog ate my log files!



More information about the Cygwin-talk mailing list