Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/02/28/19:10:21
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: New symlinks.
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 08:26:27AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >>On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 01:52:44PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>>another icon ;^). Don't underestimate people using Windows; most
of them are
> >>>>not idiots and are used to Windows idiosyncrasisms, so when using
cygwin
> >>>>they can adapt :-)
> >
> >If they are using cygwin I think a certain amount of adaptation _is
> >required_. We're not trying to build a new friendly GUI, we're
trying
> >to take one of the most flexible computing environments and put it on
> >one of the least :]
>
> We're also taking a step backwards "Symlinks used to work in 1.1.8 but
> now all of my symlinks have a .lnk extension. How do I get rid of
that?"
Very true.
> Am I the only person who reads this mailing list regularly? I can't
> believe that anyone could seriously put forth an argument of "a
certain
> amount of adaptation is required". For one thing, we have repeatedly
> seen that every time we do diverge from UNIX (e.g., textmode/binmode)
> people will complain about it and spend a lot of time offering "new"
> "ideas" for how things could be improved.
Yes. And minimising the obvious issues is very important. I read this
list every day. Every message. And I am continually surprised with the
expectation of users that they can "port" their software without any
regard to the fundamental differences that still exist between the
cygwin environment and (say) linux. (Ie textmode/binmode, O/S support
for hardlinks, root account vs NT privileges.).
The second thing that surprises me continually is the apparent inability
to search the list, or at least lurk for a few ?hours? to see if their
questions have already been answered.
> The other thing is that I try extremely hard to limit the amount of
> adaptation that a user must endure to use Cygwin. I'm really not
> comfortable adding another incompatibility.
This is a very valid point. On the other hand I'm not comfortable with
the idea that I cannot access the real files for some reason (ie if I
look at explorer and at a ls output, why aren't they the same?
> >
> >And Microsoft have been publicly slammed by the security community on
> >this and a number of related actions because of the reduction in user
> >environment awareness.
>
> Are the people using Windows aware of this public slamming? I was
> discussing this issue with someone who works on Windows today and he
was
> enthusiastic about using Windows links. I mentioned that these links
> have a ".lnk" extension and he said "They do? I didn't know that."
If they read or keep abreast of the number of ways that arbitrary code
can execute on their machines, then yes. But Microsoft have a wonderful
marketing machine.
> The bottom line is I don't care a fig about what is "correct". I'm
> concerned about surprising people. I'm not concerned about exposing
the
> ".lnk" for power users if it causes confusion for the vast majority of
> people who are not power users. I'm concerned about increasing
mailing
> list traffic by 10% when it could be avoided.
Ok, so when you get 100's of emails. "I made a symlink on my samba
share, then I went to delete it via bash on the samba server and I
couldn't find the file", you'll be _glad_ there is no sign within cygwin
that a .lnk was created.
If you don't show somewhere in cygwin that it is a .lnk file may well
end up surprising them anyway.
> >My vote: we expose the.lnk at at least one place in the interface. We
> >also make it interoperate seamlessly for scripts/batch files etc.
>
> I'm not sure what "interoperate seamlessly" means. It would be nice
> if people would try what Corinna has implemented before offering
opinions.
> Or, maybe you have done this and are just reiterating Corinna's
> implementation.
>
By interopreate seamlessly I mean, don't break shell scripts or programs
that use lnks. (Obviously thats the goal, what I what trying to say is
'show the .lnk somewhere, don't break anything to achieve that).
I have had a _very quick_ look at it. Not enough to do more than form a
quick opinion. I've learnt more from the list discussion!
I like what Corinna put up - I understand that you are suggesting
changes to that to completely hide the fact that it's a lnk. I'm arguing
against them.
Hey look, I'm just _great_ at dreaming up work for other people :]
Rob
> cgf
>
> --
> 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
- Raw text -