Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/02/28/18:39:37
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 08:57:21PM +0200, Ehud Karni wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:58:32 +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux AT microprocess DOT com> wrote:
>> People that only use the Windows GUI would be confused by the ".lnk"
>> extension if shown by cygwin, but as we don't show it by default there's no
>> problem. OTOH people used to CMD.exe will be used to the lnk suffix (as DIR
>> shows it) but should understand that cygwin is doing the same as Explorer,
>> and hide it.
>
>Don't assume Windows native users are ignorant !
Have you been reading this mailing list? Have I been transported into
another universe? Many of the posters here are ignorant. Many people
are confused by simple things.
>We are not talking
>about the layperson here (S/he uses packages, not commands), we are
>speaking of developers,
No. We're not just speaking about developers. Even if we were, you
can't possibly claim that every single person who uses Cygwin is a
developer.
Or, even if you are talking about developers, you're talking about
people who post their simple programs here asking why they don't
work, expecting others to do their debugging for them.
>I prefer that Cygwin ls -al will show me the same file list. It does
>it for *.exe files. May be a special switch can be added to ls
>(--show-symlink-full ?).
Have you considered what would be necessary to do something like this?
All of the the .lnk translation is being done at a low level in cygwin.
How, exactly, would you expose this to ls? This would mean patching ls
in some fashion. That means keeping a special patched version of ls
around.
For what gain? So that users can create symlinks that could be used
from Windows? I am wondering if the gain is worth the price.
cgf
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -