Subject: Re: My analysis of some recent discussions.
From: Warren Young <[email-masked]>
To: Cygwin-L <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:38:39 -0600

"Eric M. Monsler" wrote:

I agree with everything you said.  I have only one comment:

> The current state of cygwin, with the setup.exe and the current
> documentation, is sufficient that many people in the second category are
> able to use it successfully.  

I think you could blame setup.exe for many of the emails that hit this
list.  I don't wish it to go away -- I just think that there are a whole
lot of people who, if they're given an installation wizard, expect an
idiot-proof installation process and a drool-proof package when the
installer finishes.

In other words, setup.exe's [relative] polish belies the incomplete
nature of the product it installs.  

This same sort of thing happens with Linux, by the way -- you get a
pretty installer with most distros, but Linux isn't a perfect Windows
replacement yet, so a lot of people who try Linux go away thinking
they've been cheated with fancy wrapping around a broken product.  This
is just a matter of perception, of course, but Cygwin is a whole lot
more "broken" in this sense than Linux is.  This is perfectly
understandable: Cygwin is a magnificent hack, in every Jargon File sense
of that word.

I don't intend specific criticism by these observations.  It's just my
assessment of the current state of things.

-- 
= Warren -- ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m

--
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/