On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:50:22PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: >On 10/9/12 10:37 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 08:16:41PM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote: >>> On 10/9/12 7:45 PM, Ken Brown wrote: >>>> 1. This strikes me as going against the spirit of Cygwin, which tries >>>> to emulate Linux. Why shouldn't users who want a GUI version of emacs >>>> just use emacs-X11, as they would on Linux? >>> >>> If I wanted to emulate Linux, I'd run VirtualBox. >> >> What you want is completely irrelevant. > >I'm a Cygwin user, and I posted on a Cygwin mailing list and argued >that a package should be included in Cygwin. As part of my argument, I >described why Cygwin is useful to me and why I think the package I'm >proposing would make Cygwin more useful. There's nothing wrong with that. > >Yes, you've heard the "Cygwin is not VirtualBox" argument before. >You're not swayed. I get it. So why bother replying? If I were >compelled to interrupt conversations just to complain that I'd already >heard some argument or other, I wouldn't be able to function in >society. Hell, I probably wouldn't make it down the block without >being arrested.
I tend to reply to these types of "Cygwin should be X because I say so" messages because 1) I can and 2) to make sure that there is no confusion on what Cygwin is which could otherwise could cause others to chime in with enthusiastic "I know! I think Cygwin should be more like a floor wax!"
