This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Carlo Florendo
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:08 PM
> To: The Cygwin-Talk Maligning List
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> What a way to start this day!  Ladies and gentemen, here we 
> have the live episode of the ranting, maligning,

Again I ask, what "maligning" would you and others be referring to?  If I
have in any way "maligned" anybody, I demand the opportunity to "un-malign"
> rants-against-abusive-behaviour-discussions on the 
> cygwin-talk list.    
> Aside from Lionel B.,  I would have to declare that this 
> thread is again getting to be enjoyable!
> CGF *doesn't* need to change.  IIRC, cgf says he writes the way he 
> writes because it's fun.

In his latest statement on the topic,, he mentions nothing
about "fun".  In fact he claims there's a sort of 'grand design' to his
antisocial behavior:

"As it turns out, for the most part, the way that I conduct myself provides
me with the results that I want.  [...] Other people who want to change
things but don't have a clear idea about what they want to do and only know
that they are angry because I'm not nice to them, and won't give their
half-formed thoughts the consideration they know they deserve, eventually go
away.  Which is exactly what I want to happen."

Frankly, I'd prefer the "fun" explanation.  Unfortunately, I've been around
long enough that I can believe neither.

>   I really still can't believe that 
> some take 
> the cygwin meanness very seriously  to the point of being 
> concerned about the behaviour of cgf.  Really!
> The cygwin list has become a list where where the cygwin 
> gurus have set the culture of letting people learn to help 
> themselves first before anything else.  That's the reason for 
> the thousands of times when postings are answered with "go to 
> ""; or "goto 
>";, or, with a pointer to the 
> correct list.

Nobody is discussing such posts, not me anyway.  Why do you and some others
(one other?) believe any of this chronic issue is related to pointing people
to web pages?  I truly don't follow.

Since the rest of your post is based on this erroneous premise, I shall
refrain from further comment.

Gary R. Van Sickle

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]