Minor updates should not break existing programs (Was Re: OpenGL packaging)
Sun Nov 19 09:10:00 GMT 2000
> > Maybe. If we feel like it. Probably not, though.
> If the expressed attitude was actually the way things are done, cygwin
> would annoy users very quickly and would loose its user base.
The underlying problem is that we have an extremely limited number of
people working on cygwin, and a long list of things that need to be
done. We must prioritize. If you see a problem that is important to
*you*, then *you* could choose to fix it. Otherwise, you must rely on
some other volunteer to choose to do it. If nobody chooses to fix it,
you have no basis for complaint. This isn't the way we *choose* to
run the project, it's simply the only *possible* way to run it.
> Many a free project has died due to small problems.
Except that we are avoiding the small problems because we're busy
fixing the big ones.
> I like cygwin, I think it is a great effort, and I was puzzled by
> seeing an approval for a change which I (mistakenly) thought would
> break existing code, so I expressed my opinions.
If one volunteers to help, we give great leeway to decide such things.
We are grateful to those who help. We are grateful to those who help
identify problems. We are less grateful to those who lack respect or
appreciation for the effort that is volunteered on their behalf.
> I think this forum exists to get feedback from cygwin users. I
> think slamming users with 'you get it for free, deal with it'
> attitude is not the intention.
If you think we're slamming users with a bad attitude, then you have a
jaded point of view. In a volunteer effort, we must openly deal with
the harsh realities. Resources are scarce and volunteers are tenuous.
Volunteers get cooperation and leeway. Unconstructive complainers get
a reality check. We wish we could do more for the public, but we must
accept our limitations and deal with them.
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More information about the Cygwin