RE: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)

["Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com 
> [mailto:cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com] On Behalf Of Yitzchak 
> Scott-Thoennes
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:43 PM
> To: Talk Amongst Yourselves
> Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (malloc related?)
> 
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:58:14PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> [summary: blather blather]
> 
> Whatever.
> 

Touche.

> > 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?
> 
> I think it doesn't fit there; that's why I suggested WJM.
> Something like:
> 
> <a href="http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00279.html";>
> What mean means.</a>

"WJM" has little to do with Chris' antisocial behavior nor his
rationalizations of it.  Again, should you read Chris' rant, you'll find
that it is nothing more than that.  He admits as much himself:
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00287.html

However, I have an even better idea.  Long ago, Chris (I assume it was him)
added the lengthy disclaimer text ("I have a question! [...]") at the top of
http://cygwin.com/lists.html (That was my idea by the way, in the interest
of keeping Chris' blood pressure under control).  Perhaps this text should
be replaced with Chris' missive, something like this:

"
I have a question! Should I just send it to one (or all) of the mailing
lists below?

That depends.  First read this: <a
href="http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-talk/2005-q2/msg00279.html";> Chris on
Chris.</a>.  Ask enough questions, or the wrong question, or the right
question on the wrong day, or don't explicitly tell Chris that you're not a
for-profit company, or offer to help, or don't offer to help, or ask if
there's anything you can do to help, or actually do help, and Chris will
flip out on you in the manner he describes in that missive.  If called on it
enough, he'll then rationalize it as he does in that self-same missive.  The
rest of the community pretty much behaves themselves.  If this sort of
atmosphere appeals to you, here's the links:

<mailing list archive links etc here>
"

That would seem to cover all bases, no?  It fully explains what you believe
to be the "spirit" of "WJM", it's way shorter than the current disclaimer,
hence everybody wins.  Well, for some suitable definition of "wins" anyway.
And "everybody".

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle