Re: problems with xfree

[Christopher Faylor <cygwin-xfree at cygwin dot com>]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:13:37AM +0100, Stuart Adamson wrote:
>> 3) within the first few hours of usage, I ran a "find / -name 
>> abc -print" 
>> from the command-line, and my trusty Windows 2000 box 
>> restarted.
>
>If that crashed your windows box then that sounds like a bug in
>either Windows 2000 or base cygwin - rather than the Xfree86 port.

If the system rebooted due to the running of a non-privileged program
then it is a problem with the system not with the program.

>>but i'm still amazed at how easily my robust kernel, based on NT
>>Technology, came down.
>
>You amazed that it stayed up long enough for you to run the cygwin
>installer?  ;)

I've never had a problem keeping an NT system running.

>One thing to look at is memory usage.  Cygwin is a bit hard on memory
>usage.  Could it be that your exhausting memory and that's killing
>everything?

I am not aware of Cygwin being particularly hard on memory usage.

>>5) it'd be nice if setup.exe showed the size (in bytes or megabytes,
>>etc.) of each package (it's in setup.ini).  on my 56 Kb/s modem,
>>downloading a large, unnecessary file takes a painfully long time, but
>>a small unnecessary file is not so bad.
>
>setup.exe is a base cygwin thing as well.  You'll need to talk to
>cygwin@cygwin.com for that.

But first, of course, it would behoove anyone with a suggestion to take
a step back and consider a simple fact of life -- it's likely that
almost any suggestion you could think of has already been made.  You
could just fire off suggestions blindly or you could actually do some
research and see where the current state of setup development may be
heading.  Lack of functionality in setup.exe is not due to someone not
thinking of something, it's generally a function of someone not having
enough time to do something.

So, as always, we need doers not thinkers.

cgf