Re: [OT] polite response to polite response - Brian...

2008-09-24 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 05:57:53AM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote: >>I was merely pointing out (subtly and repetitively) that cygwin is an >>application layer on top of Windows. > >WOW! Are you sure? Wait a minute, let me check this out... > >OK, HE'S RIGHT! Christopher and Corinna, can we please br

Re: [OT] polite response to polite response - Brian...

2008-09-24 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:57:47AM -, John Emmas wrote: > From: "Barry Smith at SourceLink" >>As a programmer, my first assumption is that I messed up, not that the >>compiler is broken or Windoze is broken (like there has ever been a >>stable version of Windoze). >> >Can't disagree with that -

Re: [OT] polite response to polite response - Brian...

2008-09-24 Thread John Emmas
- Original Message - From: "Barry Smith at SourceLink" . As a programmer, my first assumption is that I messed up, not that the compiler is broken or Windoze is broken (like there has ever been a stable version of Windoze). Can't disagree with that - except to point out that there's neve

Re: [OT] polite response to polite response - Brian...

2008-09-24 Thread Andrew Schulman
> I was merely pointing out (subtly and repetitively) that > cygwin is an application layer on top of Windows. WOW! Are you sure? Wait a minute, let me check this out... OK, HE'S RIGHT! Christopher and Corinna, can we please bring this guy on as some kind of paid consultant? I think you migh

RE: [OT] polite response to polite response - Brian...

2008-09-23 Thread Barry Smith at SourceLink
Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Dessent Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 3:12 PM To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [OT] polite response to polite response - Brian... Barry Smith at SourceLink wrote: > > That doesn't mean th

Re: [OT] polite response to polite response - Brian...

2008-09-23 Thread Brian Dessent
Barry Smith at SourceLink wrote: > > That doesn't mean that 'run' was at fault. > Yet it could have been at fault, or the cygwin memory > allocation could be at fault, or Windoze, or the tool > that you're RUN-ing. The "Cygwin memory allocation" most certainly could not be at fault, nor could the

RE: [OT] polite response to polite response - Brian...

2008-09-23 Thread Barry Smith at SourceLink
> That doesn't mean that 'run' was at fault. Yet it could have been at fault, or the cygwin memory allocation could be at fault, or Windoze, or the tool that you're RUN-ing. If the tool runs in Windows correctly, then the Windows "Command Prompt" success tends to point back to CygWIN or "Run.ex