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.
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
> 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
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: