butt-retarded cygwin developers
Sun Jun 10 23:01:00 GMT 2012
On 6/11/2012 02:21, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> That discussion sort of belies the intent of the site:
> I did ask that a discussion about apt-cyg (or whatever it's called) be
> started in the cygwin list. Apparently a lot of people use it.
Just glanced through the discussions, sounds like the blind leading the
To summarize the discussion:
Something about users setting up some apt thing simply because they
didn't know setup.exe could add packages.
Gow is advertized as a Cygwin replacement, IMHO a poor replacement if it
aims to follow in the gnuwin32 footsteps. I also like how they mentioned
MSYS+MinGW32 is a capable replacement for Cygwin if somebody needed GCC
This sort of massive misunderstanding is why I tend to shy away from web
2.0 forums, is this called eternal September?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Cygwin-talk