Re: butt-retarded cygwin developers

[JonY <jon_y at users dot sourceforge dot net>]

On 6/11/2012 02:21, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Wow:
> 
> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4085022
> 
> That discussion sort of belies the intent of the site:
> 
> http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
> 
> I did ask that a discussion about apt-cyg (or whatever it's called) be
> started in the cygwin list.  Apparently a lot of people use it.
> 

Just glanced through the discussions, sounds like the blind leading the
blind.

To summarize the discussion:

Something about users setting up some apt thing simply because they
didn't know setup.exe could add packages.

Gow is advertized as a Cygwin replacement, IMHO a poor replacement if it
aims to follow in the gnuwin32 footsteps. I also like how they mentioned
MSYS+MinGW32 is a capable replacement for Cygwin if somebody needed GCC
on Windows.


This sort of massive misunderstanding is why I tend to shy away from web
2.0 forums, is this called eternal September?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature