Just a thought... if you guys ran a forum instead of an archaic email-based
listserv, you'd have a user community that could talk about these
unofficial packages amongst themselves.
Charles E. Smith
N2 Net Security, Inc.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Keith Marshall <
> On 24/04/12 18:31, Nathan Ridge wrote:
> >>> Can you point us to the 'unofficial and unsanctioned' package you
> >>> have downloaded, please?
> >> If you're going to do that, please keep it off-list. Dissemination of
> >> propaganda related to any such package may earn you "moderated" status.
> > I confess, I am a bit shocked at this attitude.
> > Some of the unofficial MinGW packages out there feature things that the
> > official one does not - for example, a more recent GCC (e.g. some of
> > them have already released GCC 4.7.0), or a GCC built with different
> > configure options.
> And here, we are drifting way off topic, but anyway:
> - OP raised an issue concerning a possible bug, in a package we both
> provide and maintain. That's fine: it is a real bug, and we appreciate
> the responsible manner in which the OP alerted us; his behaviour here is
> laudable, and no cause for concern.
> - Responder (irresponsibly) said: "forget about that; just find and use
> some alternative product, which you may find on the web". That wasn't
> enough for him: he then repeat posted several minutes later, elevating
> his (in this context, unhelpful) post into the "propaganda" bracket.
> - Any Tom, Dick or Harry may create an alternative package set; that is
> anybody's right. (Hopefully, any who do will also take care to fulfil
> their GPL obligations, by maintaining and distributing a corresponding
> source package set; failure to do so constitutes a GPL infringement, and
> renders their entire package set illegitimate).
> - Although they do have the right to distribute their own package sets,
> Tom, Dick, and Harry do not have a right to demand that we give them a
> free (zero cost) platform to advertise and promote their packages. We
> will allow them a one-shot posting to advise of the availability of a
> specific package set, (with specific download URI, which irresponsible
> responder did not provide, in this case), but persistent promotion will
> be frowned upon.
> - If Tom, Dick, or Harry do wish to publish their own package sets, then
> they also must accept a responsibility to provide their own support
> infrastructure. We are under no obligation to assist them to shirk that
> responsibility, by allowing them to subvert *our* support infrastructure
> as a clearing house for their support requests; we simply will not
> tolerate this.
> > What is the rationale behind actively suppressing information about
> > these other alternatives, whose features may be legitimately needed
> > by some MinGW users?
> And there, you've said it. This list exists to serve the needs of MinGW
> users, (i.e. users of products distributed by MinGW.org). When
> information on alternatives is presented in a responsible fashion, with
> obvious intent to keep the MinGW client base informed, then of course it
> is welcome; when it is presented as a subversive and persistent attempt
> to denigrate MinGW products, and encourage users to forsake MinGW.org,
> then it becomes inappropriate. We reserve the right to moderate posts
> from subscribers, when we consider that they may be heading in this
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> MinGW-users mailing list
> This list observes the Etiquette found at
> We ask that you be polite and do the same. Disregard for the list
> etiquette may cause your account to be moderated.
> You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
> Also: mailto:mingw-users-request@...