Re: Why Xming.exe?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 06:04:45PM +0200, David Fraser wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 10:30:48AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> 
>>
>>>In any event
>>>   
>>>
>>
>>Sorry.  This message obviously slipped out before I was done with it.
>>I blame my spastic index finger.  It likes to press the "y" key.
>>
>>In any event, what I was going to say above was that "In any event"
>>it is certainly possible to craft a Cygwin/X installation which only
>>installs a minimal number of packages.  No one has stepped forward
>>to do this.
>>
>>Many of the observations made here are fixable just by having someone
>>step forward to do the work in Cygwin.  If no one is willing to do that,
>>that's fine.  You can do related work elsewhere but touting MinGW
>>programs as a solution to Cygwin problems doesn't work.
>
>OK thats fine, just a minor point: there is one Cygwin problem that
>this solves, which is that people keep on requesting this kind of thing
>on the cygwin-xfree mailing list :-)

Yes, and people keep requesting that Cygwin shouldn't be GPLed because
it is inconvenient for them.  People ask for "su" to work correctly.
People occasionally want to discuss Xceed here, too.

This isn't a "ill-informed minority gets to decide" mailing list.

>Also its constructed from the same source code as cygwin/X so its 
>arguably the same thing.

Is anyone here *at all* familiar with MinGW?  Apparently few of you are
or you wouldn't be making arguments like this.  Much of MinGW is based
on the same source code as what Cygwin uses.

Using this logic, since Cygwin/X is based on the same source code that
runs on many different platforms, apparently we should just shut this
mailing list down and move everyone over to the main Xorg mailing lists.

>But anyway we'll happy carry on discussion on a different list

But not before trying to get off a few more shots, eh?

cgf