gnupg 1.0.7 compiled for Windows
Eugen Leitl
eugen@leitl.org
Mon Sep 2 11:44:02 2002
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Ed Suominen wrote:
> Sorry for being blunt, but the attitude Eugen Leitl expressed (shared by
Sorry for being blunt, but Martin Schoch sent a followup to a private mail
to the list by manually adding gnupg-users@ to the headers. In case you
were not aware of that, Martin, this is simply unacceptable behaviour. Try
not doing that again. It's rude as hell..
I've explained what I've meant by my *apparently* inflammatory comments in
a followup mail to him, offlist. I guess I have now to do that to this
list. Well, I only have to work today.
> many others) is one of the biggest turnoffs to "outsiders" now looking
> at the free software community as an alternative to the Redmond,
I'm not representing any official position (duh, there is no official
position), but you seem to assume that the open source movement attempts
to create a global GNU world order, aiming to shoot commercial software
vendors out of the sky. This is not something that is desirable and what
will happen. Free software caters to the needs of a specific user
community, which hardly overlaps with proprietary software users.
I personally think that a sudden influx of clueless proprietary software
users would considerably harm the community, while not actually helping
the users migrate. Looks clearly lose/lose to me.
> Washington "beast." Which is doing more to get free software in front of
> the actual *users* and business decisionmakers: (1) telling users who
> don't know (or care) what a compiler is to just go build it themselves,
> or (2) distributing the binaries for use on an OS that (for better or
> for worse) people are actually *using*?
You've got a bunch of misconceptions here. 1) We're not here to save the
world. 2) Open source developers typically develop in their spare time, on
shoestring budgets or no budgets at all. They're typically using open
source operating systems, because they suit them best. Similiar applies to
its user community. Proprietary systems are expensive, and development
environments for them are even more so. You have to keep paying through
your nose for the privilege of keeping up with updates. Donations of
proprietary systems to open source projects are infrequent (mildly put).
As such, best support for open source project is, unsurprisingly, offered
for open source platforms. If you want to change it, donate
money/hardware/software to the open source project of your choice if you
want support for your platform.
Even better, pick up programming yourself.
If you're a Windows user, ask Google for Cygwin. It's a free/open source
*nix compatibility shell some nice people built for Windows. Install it,
download last version of GPG (or whatever package you want) which builds
there, and get familiar with the build process. Then download the newest
version, and try building it as well. It will break in interesting ways.
Try to understand the error messages. If you can't, ask the developers.
They're busy, but they might help you.
You might not become a programmer (though it is a possibility), but you at
least would 1) learn something in the process, becoming an empowered user
2) are not a dead weight on the community. Similiar applies to bugs.
Report them in a well documented way to appropriate channels.
> Perhaps it's good to remember that the ultimate destination for all
> software, free or not, is on the computer of an *end user*. That person,
I am an end user. I'm very happy with packages like GPG, which typically
build out of the box by
./configure
make
make test
make install
I do not care for Windows users, nor do I expect them to use and
appreciate a command line tool. If you feel like writing wrappers for it
(like a certain Outlook plugin), go for it.
> in all likelihood, doesn't much care what Richard Stallman thinks or
> consider Microsoft inherently evil. He or she is going to switch to free
I do not care for RMS thinks, or for what Redmond does, as long as they
don't contaminate the hardware base. (Having to switch to open hardware
would be an expensive nuisance).
> software (and thus help the movement crawl out of the pizza-stained
> developer's den) because it has some benefit, in costs or features.
If that's your dream, go for it. I'm happy with it as is.
> And I say all this as the author of both an open-source software package
> and an OSI-approved license for that software.
>
> I guess the flames will start now, but I felt it needed to be said...
No flames. We just disagree.
> /--- Ed Suominen ------------------------------\
> |> Registered Patent Agent
> |> Independent Inventor of EE Technology
> |> Author, PRIVARIA Secure Networking Suite
> || Freely available at http://www.privaria.org
> \--- http://www.eepatents.com -----------------/
>
> >Message: 4
> >Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 17:37:59 +0200
> >From: Martin Schoch <maschoch@compuserve.com>
> >Reply-To: Martin Schoch <maschoch@compuserve.com>
> >To: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
> >CC: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> >Subject: Re: gnupg 1.0.7 compiled for Windows
> >
> >On Sunday, September 1, 2002 1:32:09 PM you wrote:
> >
> >EL> This is most likely because Windows is a less relevant support
> >EL> platform.
> >
> >???
> >
> >EL> You can always compile it yourself, you know.
> >
> >If you have got all the development tools on your machine...
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Best regards, Martin Schoch mailto:maschoch@compuserve.com
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
>
--
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://eugen.leitl.org
83E5CA02: EDE4 7193 0833 A96B 07A7 1A88 AA58 0E89 83E5 CA02