This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
- From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>
- To: "'Talk Amongst Yourselves'" <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:58:14 -0500
- Subject: RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
- Reply-to: Talk Amongst Yourselves <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Yitzchak
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:12 AM
> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:48:30PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> > > IMO there should be a link to this message from
> > > http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#WJM.
> > > Comments?
> > Well, since Chris just invited me to this list for, I assume, some
> > sort of "flame-off", I do have one comment. Chris has already
> > apologized for the very behavior he's defending in this meandering
> > "manifesto". So, if it belongs anywhere (and it doesn't),
> it belongs
> > under the acronym "CGF", perhaps as a hyperlink titled
> "rationalization of his singular behavior".
> I don't think you understand what cgf was apologizing about.
Yes, I do. He doesn't.
> And I'm not sure where you get the "manifesto" or "rationalization"
You read the missive, right? Allow me to summarize: "My copious
contributions to the Cygwin project are my license to behave as childishly
and abusively as I see fit." That's what's called rationalization.
> I thought it was neat that he could summarize so well
> his tendency to direct people toward acting in their own best
> interests, which is what is jokingly referred to as being
I thought the cool part was where he said, "Jeez, I *am* an inexplicable
jerk way too often. I'm going to change my behavior so I don't have to
apologize to people so often."
Oh, right, he didn't say that.
> I understand that you don't get the joke, but do you
> have to show so repetitively that you don't get it?
Why would Chris feel the need to apologize for a "joke"?
But the topic of this sub-thread here is OCLA hyperlinks. What do you think
of my idea that this really belongs as a link under the "CGF" heading?
Gary R. Van Sickle