About Cygwin 1.0

Sat May 26 12:55:00 GMT 2001

I, for one, would like to hear and straightforward reply to this question.
I don't know too much about cygwin's history. Was cygwin 1.0 the version
that cygnus was selling for like 100ドル before they got bought by red hat?
Was is that much more stable than what we have now?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall R Schulz" <rrschulz@cris.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: About Cygwin 1.0
>> Just when you think you've heard it all...
>> Maybe the writer meant "immortal" instead of "immoral?"
>> Randall Schulz
> Mountain View, CA USA
>>> At 09:25 2001年05月26日, you wrote:
> >Hello!
> >
> >Thank you for the free Cygwin software. One thing I'd like to talk about:
> >I was surprised to find no information on your pages (especially FAQ)
> >about the reasons why you have not released the stable Cygwin 1.0
> >via the net.
> > Is it that you want people to use the unstable versions in order
> >to hasten the development of future versions (by their bug reports)?
> >In the spirit of the Gnu Public Licence, that would seem immoral to me.
> >If the public develops the software (under GPL) with their contributions,
> >they should also be allowed to enjoy the fruits (and not be constrained
to
> >keep toiling with bugs when a stable version exists).
> > So please, let me know the true reasons why Cygwin 1.0 is not
> >distributed on the net.
> >
> > If people could more readily use stable versions in their
developments,
> >perhaps Cygwin's reputation would improve (as it pertains to
reliability).
> >
> >I thank you and I wish you success with your Cygwin affairs.
>>> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple