Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> You're working from an assumption that cygwin is an unknown project.
> It is currently the most popular project on sources.redhat.com, so I
> don't think it is suffering too badly from lack of awareness.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, Chris, but you're using a flawed
model. So *what* if cygwin is the most popular project on
sources.redhat? Sure, sources.redhat hosts gcc and binutils -- but how
many people actively hack gcc, and/or download it directly from its
homepage? Most people just get gcc (and bzip, and ... ) from their
distributor. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people use gcc
daily (now THAT's publicity) -- but only a tiny tiny tiny fraction will
ever visit sources.redhat.
With cygwin, everyone who uses it will at some point visit
sources.redhat...that is cygwin's primary locus of publicity. The other
projects have many more publicity locii.
However, I do agree that cygwin is pretty well known -- if only as the
black sheep of the free software family (Imagine! Allowing Gatesians to
use GNU software. The horror!) Or better, as the dangling carrot of
the free software world within the walls that Bill built.
--Chuck
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
