Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
content-class:	urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	RE: name: GNU/cygwin system
Date:	Tue, 21 May 2002 15:00:29 -0400
Message-ID:	<3D848382FB72E249812901444C6BDB1D0BA8F2@exchange.timesys.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
From:	"Robb, Sam" <sam DOT robb AT timesys DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g4LJ7IJ26487

> I don't disagree with your conclusion, Chris, but you're 
> using a flawed 
> model.  So *what* if cygwin is the most popular project on 
> sources.redhat?

Just for the record: any number of "unix + windows" related
searches ("bash for windows", "gnu for windows", "unix for
windows", "gcc for windows", "free windows compiler", etc.)
turn up the Cygwin home in the top ten links (in most of my
examples, as the #1 link.)

At my previous company - with many hardcore Windows software
folks - I think that just about everyone had at least heard
of Cygwin, and a majority of us had used it at one point or
another (either at work, at home, or both.)  Keep in mind,
this was in Pittsburgh, PA - not Silicon Valley, Boston, or
any other traditional hotbed of cutting-edge technology.

Anecdotal evidence, perhaps.  But I honestly don't think that
Cygwin has any kind of visibility problem.

-Samrobb

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -