Mail Archives: cygwin/2007/08/02/09:32:11
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 05:03:39AM -0400, Andrew Schulman wrote:
>>An explanation of why this ".lnk" ism came into being.
>>
>>I, as I user do not think its justified, but somebody had the idea and
>>sold it, but apparently, we, users were not informed or asked about it.
>>
>>I has also broke other programs that ran fine with, well symbolic
>>limks. The kind we are used to and do not need ".lnk" extensions for.
>>
>>What is the rationale for introducing this monster.... or is there a
>>good one.
>>
>>Please let us all know.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>P.s. should not need all that nonsense below.. And sorry to say I am
>>not familiar with this r attribute, except as a read(r)permission. Is
>>the group intentionally trying to be obtuse?
>
>OK, you've just posted to this group for the first time. You're
>ignorant of some basic things about Cygwin and DOS. Well, that's no
>sin; people will help you if you're polite.
Not the first message by a long shot:
http://www.google.com/search?q=wynfield+site%3Acygwin.com
>But you obviously haven't read the Cygwin documentation, or you would
>know the answers to some of your questions. So now you're starting to
>irritate people.
>
>And what do you do next? You insult the project co-leader-- a person
>who, unlike you, has earned considerable respect on this list-- and say
>that everything must be her/our fault!
>
>Congratulations, you have just alienated the entire community of people
>who might have helped you, in your very first post. This is quite an
>accomplishment, I've only rarely seen it done.
...but that doesn't negate anything that was said above. It's amazing
that a simple, helpful response from Corinna would cause that kind of
unfriendly response.
cgf
--
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 -