This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Updated cygwin dlls cause unnecessary reboot on NT
On 12/26/2006, Linda Walsh wrote:
The excerpt below is a mere subset of the response but is the only one that
raises a point that we haven't already been through at least once in this
thread so I wanted to respond to it.
Not everyone can be a developer on every piece of software they use.
You can't easily be an expert in all domains. Lobbying or convincing
someone else to implement something in a product they are already
familiar with is far easier than patching a product then meeting
someone else's expectations of what the patch should look like and learning
how to work with that project.
This can be true. However, to do this effectively, one has to listen and
learn as well. Simply restating a point you've made before, if it hasn't
already been agreed to, does less to convince and more to polarize. If
your points aren't agreed upon by the people you're trying to convince,
it's up to you to take the feedback you're given and figure out how that
affects your argument. If you discount the feedback, it doesn't matter
whether you're on the right or wrong side of the argument. The fact that
you don't address the points raised means that you've conceded that there's
no way to reasonably convince the ones you're lobbying to take up your
cause. If that's the case, then further discussion of the point(s) of
contention is irrelevant and probably even counter-productive.
Linda, I think we've reach this point here, unless you're willing to try
to understand why "fork()" is important to Cygwin. No one on this list
is going to be willing to break "fork()" just to make the experience
of using "setup.exe" a little easier on XP and later O/Ss. The trade-off
value is simply not there. If you want to think about how to make what
you're talking about work without sacrificing fork, then that's something
to talk about. New ideas along this line may catch some developer's
interest. If you plan to continue discussion of this issue, I'd recommend
considering such alternate tactics.
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
_____________________________________________________________________
A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/