WinXP is dead [WAS: 2.6.x: broken compatibility with Wine]
Peter A. Castro
Sat Nov 12 04:34:00 GMT 2016
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Herbert Stocker wrote:
> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:30:55 +0100
> From: Herbert Stocker
> Subject: Re: WinXP is dead [WAS: 2.6.x: broken compatibility with Wine]
> Hi Peter,
> On 11/11/2016 1:15 AM, Peter A. Castro wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Herbert Stocker wrote:
>>> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 23:11:16 +0100
>>> From: Herbert Stocker
>>> Subject: Re: WinXP is dead [WAS: 2.6.x: broken compatibility with Wine]
>> Greetings, Herbert,
>>> On 10.11.2016 04:21, Andrey Gursky wrote:
>>>> Regarding cygwin time machine. I can't use it, since cygwin
>>>> is compiled for MSYS2. And then it is being run under Wine
>>>> on GNU/Linux.
>>> So we have two people who have difficulty using time machine.
>>> i did download setup.exe and the binary packages of the last
>>> version with XP support using the "Download but don't Install"
>>> feature of setup.exe . (But i never tested if it's usable).
>> I don't understand. What difficulty did you have? It sounds like you
>> successfully downloaded (I presume) the 32-bit packages from the Time
>> Machine? What was difficult about it? I really want to know.
>> If it's just *slow*, well, yes, that's a know problem. :-/
> No, i did not have any difficulty with the time machine. Simply
> because i did not download from it as i was not aware whether
> something like this existed, and time was short.
Ah. I understand. Well, it is available, should you need something
from it in the future. But it is currently "slow", I acknowledge that.
Hmm...for something called a "Time Machine" one wouldn't think it cost you
actual "time"? Perhaps I should rename it? :)
> There was another mail where somebody indicated they had difficulty
> with time machine iirc.
They did not really elaborate much on what the difficulty was, beyond it
being slow, that is.
In private email, many people encounter trouble because they assume the
Time Machine is like any other FTP site. But, due to it's organization, I
simply cannot support the typical (expected?) behaviour (largely browsing
and mechanical tools to "scrape" the site). It was only ever intended to
be accessable via the Setup program, nothing more. That others seem to
insist it be accessable otherwise is not really something I care all that
much about. It's intended usage is quite clear. Once people are clear on
that, they generally have no "problems" getting what they need. It only
cost them "time".
> If there are no Problems with time machine i see no need to provide
> another copy of something.
> Unless you'd need a mirror.
Others have offered to be a mirror, but once I explain the organization
and how that would be exposed, they decide otherwise. I've stated in
other email that I am working on an export to another service that will
provide much better bandwidth, but, still, I will likely restrict it's
access to Setup. Just because additional bandwidth is available, doesn't
mean I will allow the same kinds of abused. Hmm... I suppose that is mean
of me? :)
>> Also, did you pull the source packages?
> No. Was too much clicking involved with setup.exe and i thought i'd
> never compile these old sources anyway.
And, again, you see that a general philosophy of Cygwin is to take only
what you need. Indiscriminate data hording really serves no purpose.
> Now i know more. The great thing called open source software is not
> complete if without source. It's just usable then.
That is implicit in the name: Open *Source* Software. :-)
> best regards,
> and thanks for maintaining a history of Cygwin.
Though you haven't used it (yet?), I thank you for your (future)
--=> Peter A. Castro
Email: doctor at fruitbat dot org / Peter dot Castro at oracle dot com
"Cats are just autistic Dogs" -- Dr. Tony Attwood
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin