RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

["Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:12 PM
> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> 

We're still at this, huh Chris?  Ok, whatever you want, but at some point
I'm going to have to start charging.

> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:39:03PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >>You got that right.  Imagine what would happen if we were 
> to get too 
> >>deeply into my behavioral problems.
> >
> >Better yet, imagine what would happen if you suddenly 
> decided to behave 
> >in a mature and at least semi-professional manner.
> 
> Yeah, there's certainly no fun there.
> 

But the point is, then you could then seek other, healthy forms of fun.

> >>My bed wetting might return and then I'd have to add my 
> wife's name to 
> >>the 99.99% of the people in the cygwin community who hate my guts.
> >
> >I think that one's called a "persecution complex".
> 
> That's #3 today for the psychological assessments.  That may 
> be a daily record for you.
> 

Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there.  If you don't like the term
"persecution complex", how would you describe such a thought process then?
I recall nobody ever suggesting that "99.99% of the people in the cygwin
community [..] hate [your] guts".  What I do recall is a significant number
of people taking issue with your abusive behavior on the mailing lists (what
you refer to in your missive as, IIRC, "one or two").  That's not the
persecution you take it to be, that's factual.

> >Nobody in the Cygwin community hates you Chris.  I certainly 
> don't.  I 
> >just want you to behave yourself, much like any sixth-grader is able 
> >and expected to do.
> 
> Gee, I have to stop feeding you straight lines.  You really 
> hit that one out of the park!
> 

Thanks, but let's stay on-topic here.  What is so hard about behaving
yourself?  Virtually everybody else that's ever been involved with Cygwin
seems to be able to do so.  You yourself even seem to be able to do so 90%
of the time, until somebody steps on yet another buried CGF land mine of
inexplicable belligerence.  If you refuse to behave yourself, would you at
least give us the map to those mines?  They seem to be laid out in no
discernable pattern.

Or are even you uncertain where you buried them?

> >>You know I'd expect a lot more sympathy from someone who 
> was sincerely 
> >>trying to help...
> >
> >You expect sympathy, but refuse to give any?  Interesting.
> 
> You really do have my sympathy Gary.  I'm truly sorry that I 
> haven't made that clear before.  And, believe it or not, I 
> say this with no humorous intent.  I really mean it.
> 

Oh Chris, that's not necessary; I've dealt with hides of thicker than yours
many times before; it's really almost second nature to me now.  And to tell
you the truth, if, after all is said and done, your behavior improves
permanently, even by just a small amount, that's really all the thanks I
need.

As to your bemoaning of your perceived lack of sympathy on my part: We're
not to the point in the process where I could offer you any sympathy even if
I wanted to.  All I see is unacceptable behavior from you with no
predictable trigger or known root cause.  Yes, that alone is pitiable, but
I'm not here for the pity party.  My overall goal is to change this
behavior, for the good of the project; my immediate goal is to get you to
admit you have a problem, the necessary first step on your road to recovery.
Once you start down that road, we can talk about sympathy.  Until then, no
amount of sympathy or pity anyone has for you will make any difference.

Allow me a small indulgence: "I'd expect a lot more sympathy from someone
who was sincerely trying to help..."  Chris, that almost sounds like you
recognize there is in fact a problem.  Freudian slip, perhaps?  Or just
wishful thinking on my part?

> >>Btw, I think that's #2 for the term "behavioral problems".  We're 
> >>currently stalled at 5 for the term "flame-off".
> >
> >Does counting the number of times I use particular terms or phrases 
> >somehow help you cope with your issues, Chris?
> 
> Yes.  It does.

How tragic.

>  Categorizing someone's needs to compulsively 
> repeat observations really does help me.

How does that help you Chris?  It doesn't have any outwardly visible effect
on your behavior that I can detect, and I can't quite make the connection
between "word counts" and "rationalization of childish behavior".

>  So, I guess you 
> really are helping me after all.  In your own way.
> 

That's why I'm here.

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:40:21AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >So, he (Gary) was assuming that a message that you sent at 
> 9AM EDT on 
> >Thursday was going to see some sort of harsh response more 
> than twelve 
> >hours later.
> 
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 06:39:03PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >This seems very similar to how you were (are?) so enamored with the 
> >number of hours between the time somebody posted a question and the 
> >time I posted a response.
> 
> cgf

Close, but no cigar Chris.  I was of course referring to the last time your
poor behavior became an issue, and your response was to belittle my
contributions to the Cygwin project.  Part of that belittlement (and I still
haven't made the connection there) was you stating something to the effect
of 
"it often takes Gary many hours to reply after a question is asked".  You're
better than I am at mining the mailing lists, so I'm sure you'll be able to
produce the correct quote in no time.  I suppose if I feel ambitious enough,
I might do so myself.  But that'll cost you extra.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle