This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Mysterious gdb behavior.

Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2002 at 11:13, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> I simply stated that your assertion was false. At no point did I
>> target you. My aim was simply to prevent the other people from
>> learning incorrect information.
> Like hell it was. If that was your aim, it wasn't well served, since
> the assertion *you* made was false.

No, it was correct, as confirmed by other posters.

> Besides, it's obvious from your
> tone here that your intent is to smear me.

My tone was terse, that is true, but it reflects lack of inclination to type a
long reply, not any evil intent.

> Go find something more
> constructive to do.
>>> The problem is that you are trying to tar me some kind of idiot!
>> No. I'm not. As above.
> Deny it all you want. Besides, regardless of what you are *trying* to
> do, what the hell do you think it looks like???

I think it looks like I'm irritated about an incorrect statement phrased as
total truth, without an 'I think...' or 'Aren't ... ?'

>>> No, the difference is that someone has taken a personal dislike to
>>> me, for whatever reason. The reason is irrelevant.
>> I just gave the only possible reason above!
> Which reason amounts to, I'm being treated differently because I'm an
> idiot.

Not really. I'd say because of a tendency to misinterpret impatience as dislike,
and respond in kind. Also, because a lack of willingness to experiment and

> Well, I refuse to accept that. I have strong defenses against
> being tricked into negative self-beliefs. Messages that are
> insulting, or make insulting insinuations, are not trusted and nor
> are their authors for some time after. If only M$ mail clients were
> that secure.
> Take your insults and your toys and go back to your own back yard to
> play.
>>> Then why didn't you just say so, instead of appearing to disagree
>>> and insulting my intelligence with every posting?
>> I was not discussing changing windows usernames as applied to this
>> situation. I was simply arguing that, should you want to do it, it
>> would be substantially less difficult than you suggested. I'm sorry
>> if I gave you the wrong impression about this.
> Substantially less difficult as in three hours of pain and nitpicking
> followed by one week of catching more omitted changes, instead of
> five hours and three weeks?

As in 1 minute to change your username, rename your _Cygwin_ home directory, and
change /etc/passwd, followed by a need to re-edit /etc/passwd if you regenerate
it with mkpasswd.

>>> Bull. If I change my username to Zaphod Beeblebrox, to make things
>>> consistent I'd have to rename my home directories (Windows and
>>> cygwin both) to Zaphod Beeblebrox.
>> Cygwin, maybe. Windows, no. Windows intends for you to access stuff
>> in your home directory through things like My Documents.
> C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\My Documents, to be exact -- can
> you imagine the chaos when the path to *that* changes?!
>> Yes. You are not required or supposed to change Windows home dirs.
> Nor, I'd expect, unix ones.

Can if you like. No particular hangups.

>> Indeed. The one and only place we told you to edit in the first
>> place.
> Without deigning to tell me whether or not anything *else* needed
> doing along with that. Besides the obvious.

I would imagine it was a spur of the moment reply, not a carefully crafted
educational document.

> [Various snippage]
>>> But when I dismissed it as too much pain and hardship you lambasted
>>> me.
>> No. I attempted to correct some points on which you were
>> misinformed. You took this very badly, for some reason unknown to me.
> Umm, would you like being bluntly contradicted ina public forum? The
> result is to appear foolish.

If I stated that X was true, when in fact X was unequivocally false, I would not
be annoyed at someone who corrected me.

My standing in the eyes of anyone who already knew the correct information
regarding X would be unchanged, and anyone who did not, deserves not be misled.
And I would deserve to know the truth, for future use.

> Especially with what's going on
> elsewhere in the thread especially with Greg and Kim that is the LAST
> thing I want or need.
> Especially under the circumstances, that is a lambasting. The implied
> judgment is pretty clear and unwelcome. And undeserved.

I did not go out of my way to polite - true. But it was not intended as such,
only as a correction, in the minimum number of keystrokes possible.


Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]