Subject: Re: Cygwin_setup.exe comments...
From: "Linda W." <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:40:17 -0700

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

>Linda,
>
>Have you tried a setup snapshot?  <http://cygwin.com/setup-snapshots/>.
>
----
    My computer isn't so stable these days.  MS and Dell both want me to 
reformat.  Installed
the MS dcom and activex 9.0b patch in July.  My video driver was 
disabled, mostly.  I tried
latest update from Dell, but it's a bit faulty (version.txt=6.7, but no 
files versioned above
6.0something).  Dell support thinks version problem is due to a fault on 
my system (they don't
know how to look at file versions).  Anti-aliasing no longer works for 
one -- but Outlook XP
no longer speaks IMAP and returns 75% error rate on sendmails (they do 
get sent, but with some
number of errors).  Mozilla doesn't have the problem.  No other apps 
seem to be affected (other
than general system slowdown -- usually for no good reason (though 
occasional explorer is
eating cpu, but usually there is idle time left over....)  MS 
windows-update personel
says that wiping my hard disk will eliminate all traces of their mistake 
and solve my
problem.  So far, they refuse to let me talk to an Outlook support or 
development person to
even ask about the IMAP conversation or where (in the protocol ) it 
fails -- since it doesn't
fail at the same place each time, but it does fail at the same place in 
an IMAP transaction (just
doesn't fail reliably on first - 3rd transaction, though usually does by 
4th).  Of course
uninstalling/reinstalling Outlook had no effect, neither did running SFC 
and allowing it to replace
all files.  So the fact that 100+ other programs do work and only 
Outlook XP is directly affected
means my system is corrupt.  Yeah.  Right.  And these [h-t]{4} for 
brains idiots expect me
to trust that reformatting and reinstalling all their patches will 
result in the same situation?
Why am I not feeling comfortable with that suggestion?

    So anyway, I'm not being xtremely venturous on my computer these 
days -- I did install
the latest released setup though.

>
>Already there.
>
Haven't seen this -- Each time I get to the where to install from it's 
sorta stupidly picking the least general
option ('direct').  If I was engaging my brain to make things easy for a 
user, I'd figure, Gee, they are on windows.
They _likely_ have IE configured to access the internet.  Maybe I'll 
default to that instead of direct connect.  But
hey, that's just me thinking out off the top of my user-friendly 
encrusted training.  

>
>Some are already there...
>
 None of them work in the released version.  I seem to get taken through 
every dialogue.  I have RSI -- that's
like in "repetitive stupid interactions" with dumb UI.  I can't even 
just click 'ok' -- cause the 'you bad naughty
person -- you are doing what most developers do and making your install 
dir "c:\"....are you sure you want to
do what any sane developer is already doing?  <move mouse> <click> <move 
mouse back to 'next'>...etc.

>
>IMO, it's better the way it is now -- all the dialogs still there, but the
>values are saved; you just click "Next".
>
>
----
    What part of repetitive stupid inteface don't you get?  It hurts.  
It causes damage.  It screws people
up.  Sorry my tone is going to [h-t]{4}, but the recounting the MS and 
Dell stupidity stirred up a bit
of impatience with people 'who know better' and tell me it's better that 
I reformat my disk, that way I can
re-enter all the options and just click 'next'.  You don't know the joy 
that 'attitude' inspires in me.

>
>Frankly, I think Cygwin setup is simply marvelous in terms of window size,
>especially when compared with something like <http://www.guimp.com/>...
>
---
    So?...you are saying just because you are better than MS, for 
example, that this
means anything?  I'm a faster typer than my dog too.  And?  This is a 
standard
for good?  What's wrong with a resizable window?  I really don't know -- 
does it require
a Ph.D. to do?  I've never done windows programming, so I really don't 
know, but is
it really that difficult?

>
>> auto select server with lowest response
>>latency....but that's too much work for the benefit right now...(IMO)...
>>
>
>This was proposed already -- see the cygwin-apps archives.  In fact, most
>of your suggestions have been brought up at one time or another, and they
>all either are being worked on, or have been already.
>
---
    Oh good, glad I'm not the only one actually thinking about 
things...I'm afraid to even
mention the issue of "performance" (because I don't know how to fix it 
and wouldn't have
the first clue of how to start -- sorta hard when you are limited to 
typing 20-60 minutes
a day).

>
>Under the "it would be nice", category, being able to click on an item
>and right click on it to get more information would be real helpful at
>times.  Some program names I don't recognize, and things like
>"nasm"...network assembler...what's a network assember vs.  the
>gnu-assumber ("gasm"?).
>
>
>See above.  You can probably even search the cygwin-apps archives for
>"right-click" on this one...
>
----
    I can probably search the web for almost anything.  That doesn't 
mean it doesn't
bear repeating.  Just because any historian knows that prohibition was a 
failure that was a monumental
boost/start to organized crime in america doesn't mean the lessens are 
remembered today.  Just
because sam or tom or mary said something 3 months or 3 years ago in the 
archives doesn't mean
everyone on the list now remembers that they said it.  Maybe you do, but 
I don't.  And I don't
intend to memorize the archives.

Call me stupid (many people do as I sometimes show a remarkable lack of 
tact), but when I
develop a product, I generally do so to make life easier for others -- 
not just for me.  I do scripts
and"'one-of's" for me, but programs/projects -- I want alot of input -- 
even if it is repetitious so I
get a clue of what people are wanting "today" -- not some "archive" 
months or years ago. 

If I can't please them or they are being unreasonable, screw-em.  But 
when they ask nicely, I usually
try for a polite response and not something to make them feel like I've 
just blown them off.  I'd like them
to stay interested and engaged in the product -- if not developing, at 
least using and giving feedback.
How else can I develop the best?  I can't even come close to pretending 
I know the wants and desires of
everyone out there.  Just doesn't happen w/o input.

>
>Someone does.  Most of that stuff is already on there 
>
---
    I loaded the latest released version, today.  My comments are based 
on that code.  None of
what I mentioned is addressed.  That's why I suggested it -- I mean if I 
thought about it, and someone
suggested a bunch of things that I thought were already in the product, 
I'd probably wonder why
they were suggesting it -- like maybe there is a bug somewhere and they 
aren't seeing the same
behaviors I see.  But that's usually my first response, because I 
usually (perhaps wrongly) assume that
the person may have a point -- and that's why they bothered to waste 
their time writing about it.

    So go ahead and believe it's all there...because it's not working in 
the releaseed version.  having to go through
each page isn't "automatic".  It's manual and "repetitive" -- like  in 
RSI injuries (and people wonder why
RSI's are so prevelant in the Computer industry...)

thoroughly trashed linda.
(to microsoft with ya!)
(how's that for a curse!) ;-/

-- 
         --->         A software Engineer for CA governer?         <---
         --->            Georgy Russell for CA governor            <---
         --->             http://www.georgyforgov.com              <---

--
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/