Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/07/26/12:41:03
At 12:29 AM 7/26/2005, you wrote:
>> > - Name of setup utility: setup.exe
>>
>>
>> I doubt this will change. It was chosen ages ago in the
>> hopes that it would be a well understood name for the Windows
>> crowd. So far, there's been no real complaint about the name
>> and, better yet, no indication that someone can't install
>> because they can't figure out what executable to run. I'd
>> say the name 'setup.exe' is here to stay.
>
I'll respond to the valid points below since they came up as a result
of my comments. However, there is still no plan to change the name of
'setup.exe' to anything else.
>There are much better choices however -- many people will
>store such downloads in a generic download directory and
>having no mention of the actual program/system name in the
>file is a nuisance (understandable, but a nuisance.)
>
>And of course one can name the download something else when
>saving it, but then it is difficult to tell on the next
>update if you have the "same file/different version" already.
Then there's the question "Why do you care?" Just download 'setup.exe'
each time you do an update and you're sure to have the latest. And, as
you say, you can name it whatever you like.
>cygwin.exe or cygwinsetup.exe would both be better names.
If the name of 'setup.exe' was going to change, it would certainly
need to convey to the user that it is an installation program, so your
second suggestion might be better. Still, it is common practice to name
setup programs 'setup' for Windows so making any change is likely to cause
more confusion than there is now (and based on the list feedback, there
seems to be very little confusion on this point right now).
>cygwin.msi might have advantages but that is far more than
>a "simple name change" <grin>
That's a different topic which has been discussed. But until somebody
offers a viable alternative to the current 'setup.exe' installation
program, 'setup.exe' will remain in use.
>The setup is very confusing for Windows users, especially
>on re-install.
>
>And it is difficult to figure out how to get "just one
>package" and avoid the whole 'setup.exe' issue -- most
>online docs send the user back to setup.exe when frequently
>all we want is one specific package.
>
>Not a big deal, but noticable; especially for the beginner
>to Cygwin.
I don't think you've made your point with the above. What's
so difficult, specifically, about picking 1 package in 'setup.exe'?
>More users who thing Cygwin is cool and easy would be a GOOD
>THING.
True but this is all getting off-point for the OP. The paraphrased
question was "What's likely to change here in the short-term and
long-term?" You're offering feedback on what's wrong with the current
install program UI/functionality. If you'd like to pursue this
discussion, it's probably best to do so in another thread and preferably
on the cygwin-apps list.
--
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -