Subject: Re: Cygwin participation threshold
From: Geoffrey Noer <[email-masked]>
To: Christopher Faylor <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:51:49 -0800

On Wed, Feb 24, 1999, Christopher Faylor wrote:
[...]
  > >    By the way, if you haven't answered that yet, changing name from
> >gnu-win32 to cygwin has your motivation or FSF's?
> 
> I wasn't around for all of the naming decisions but I think that the
> decision was entirely Cygnus's.  Maybe if Geoff is still reading the
> list he can elaborate.  It would be interesting to see if contributions
> slacked off after the original name change.

Yep, I'm still here.  :-)

Folks at Cygnus made the decision (I was one of the people involved in
it, to a degree).  It was made for a number of reasons -- that
"gnu-win32" was needlessly cumbersome, that Cygwin was meant to
support more Unix apps than just the GNU ones, and that the central
piece of technololgy was Cygwin so it made sense to use that name for
the tools as well as for the library.

Whether or not this was a good decision, it's made and as the person
who recently went through all of the config files changing all
instances of cygwin32 to cygwin*, I hope the current project name
stays for a good long time. :-)

AFAIK, amount of contributions did not vary with this name change.
I think most variation has more to do with how busy individual people
have been and what they've been interested in working on.

-- 
Geoffrey Noer		Email: [email-masked]
Cygnus Solutions

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]