Andy Koppe wrote: > On 22 September 2010 12:54, Earnie wrote: >> Andy Koppe wrote: >>>> MSYS on the other hand has no paying customers and the changes >>>> there only need to be approved by the FOSS users who code and >>>> maintain it. >>> >>> So are you saying that MSYS might become less integrated with >>> Windows than Cygwin, or did you just fancy a spot of preaching >>> apropos of nothing in particular? >>> >> >> I didn't have either thought. Just pointing out that it is >> sometimes easier to make something more useful with a code fork >> than to play the political business game. There is no malice in >> that statement since the statement itself was penned without >> thinking about where I was sending the statement. I do fully >> understand the position of this project, actually I'm quite >> impressed with it. > > Thanks for the explanation, and apologies for getting a bit flamey. > It was the "Cygwin exists solely as a money making project for Red > Hat" bit that riled me. While of course that's true from the > perspective of Red Hat's bottom line, the wider Cygwin community > (including Corinna, judging by the effort she puts in) obviously has > a different perspective. >
I'm sure if it were dropped by Red Hat it would continue. However, currently if a feature is changed and the client doesn't like the change it will be accommodated. I've seen it happen. I know Corinna does a bang up job, I follow the development list. Earnie ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
