Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/02/05/11:03:38
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote:
>Christopher Faylor sent the following at Friday, February 05, 2010 9:59 AM
>>On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 03:08:59PM +0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>>>On 05/02/2010 11:58, G.W. Haywood wrote:
>>>>It's long seemed to me that there's a case for changing the name of
>>>>this file. On the average Windows box it is not unusual to see several
>>>>files called 'setup.exe' descended from entirely unrelated products.
>>>
>>>The Cygwin icon is a bit of a dead giveaway.
>>
>>And, how, exactly, would changing the name of setup.exe to something
>>else cause a DECREASE in traffic? It seems like the opposite would be
>>true. We'd have to set up a new
>>"cygwin-what-happened-to-setup DOT exe AT cygwin DOT com" list.
>
>Actually, for a while I've thought that a name change might be useful.
>
>The icon identifies it in the GUI, but not on the command line.
>
>I seem to remember having sometimes being blocked from doing something
>with a file named setup.exe. I wasn't blocked after I changed the name
>or find some other way to do whatever I was trying to do with it.
>
>(Though maybe it was with a different "setup.exe".)
Your experiences notwithstanding, obviously thousands of people are
running setup.exe without problem. Changing the name would throw a
large group of people into confusion.
We're not going to change the name. I think the cost outweighs any
benefit (and I actually don't see any benefit).
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -