This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-xfree
mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.
Re: compiling flpsed under Cygwin
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Stephen P. Harris wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Igor Pechtchanski" <pechtcha@XX.XXX.XXX>
> To: <cygwin-xfree@XXXXXX.XXX>
<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR>.
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Stephen P. Harris wrote:
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@XXXXXX.XXX>
> > > To: <cygwin-xfree@XXXXXX.XXX>
> >
> > <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#PCYMTNQREAIYR>.
> >
> > > [snip]
> > > SH: So change the FAQ and the name of the mailing list. Why is
> > > your sayso tobe considered authoritative and the FAQ dismissed?
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > 1) You display either ignorance of the FAQ or presume that others
> > > should regard your interpretation of the FAQ as superior to that doc.
> >
> > See <http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#CGF>.
>
> I suppose this is an appeal to authority type of argument. I criticized
> the fact that the Cygwin FAQ and CGF's statements contradict each other.
> Do you think mentioning his title erases the contradiction?
It's not his title that is in question here. The Cygwin project is run by
volunteers. Chris and Corinna and others make their contributions to
Cygwin on their own time. There is no official support for Cygwin (unless
you buy a Red Hat license). So it's quite understandable that
documentation is sometimes incomplete, and that other users contribute
support when and to the extent that they are able.
> It was Chris Faylor who wrote:
> "1. If you are truly using XFree86 then you're off-topic for this mailing
> list. We don't support XFree86 anymore.
>
> SH: That may be, but how am I to know that? The FAQ says:
>
> "Almost anything related to Cygwin is on-topic here. Please note,
> that this is not a mailing list for the discussion of general Windows
> topics. There are many many other places for that on the Internet.
>
> Also note, that if you are interested in the Cygwin XFree86 project
> which is porting the XFree86 code to Windows, then the correct
> mailing list for this discussion is cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com. "
>
> SH: I assume then that the FAQ does not need to be amended and
> that Chris Faylor can contradict the FAQ whenever he chooses.
No, the point is that the FAQ *does* need to be amended, but
<http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#SHTDI>. Unless someone volunteers their time
to make changes to the FAQ, this isn't going to happen.
> SH: Igor, bring up titles does not refute evidence of a written
> contradiction in policy. Your point about qualifications does nothing to
> rebut my point that the policies are contradictory. Do you think you
> make the point that such contradictions are ok, depending on who makes
> them?
Yes, precisely. The point I make is that Chris, by the virtue of being
the project leader, is the ultimate authority on all things Cygwin. If he
contradicts the FAQ, then the FAQ is wrong. By contradicting it publicly,
the issue is now on the mailing lists, and there is a chance that someone
will volunteer their time to produce the corrections to the FAQ (which,
BTW, Chris does not maintain).
> You are replying to an imaginary issue, his qualifications, rather than
> my point which is that the statements are contradictory.
I do not dispute that his statements are contradictory. What I was trying
to tell you by showing you his qualifications is that if he contradicts
the FAQ, he's most probably right.
> And so on. I do think CFG should not make statements contradictory to
> the FAQ, or assume the responsibility of editing the FAQ so that it does
> not mislead users; not when you push reading the documentation.
Again, Cygwin is a volunteer-run project. Until the Cygwin FAQ maintainer
has the time to take CGF's statements and incorporate them into the FAQ,
the FAQ will be out of date. FAQ updates do happen occasionally, and this
information will likely find its way into the FAQ at some point. Nobody
knows when.
Cygwin users should try reading the mailing list archives to see if any
documentation is out of date. If they don't read the archives, they
should not be surprised when FAQ errors are pointed out to them on the
mailing lists. If they are surprised or offended by the documentation
being out of date, they can return the product for a full refund.
Instead of complaining that the FAQ is out of date, you can help the cause
by coming up with the proper wording and creating a patch against the FAQ
sources (which are publicly available in CVS). You don't even need a
copyright assignment for this, IIRC. It would make the FAQ maintainer's
job much easier, and is likely to bring those particular FAQ entries
up-to-date sooner. If you are unwilling to do that, you cannot demand
that someone else spend their time doing it.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor@watson.ibm.com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. /DA