X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 10:23:25 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Those nasty bundled Cygwin's Message-ID: <20060820142325.GA11752@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 09:00:36AM +0200, ?yvind Harboe wrote: >One of the reasons that companies distribute Cygwin (often breaching >the GPL by not including the source) is that Cygwin setup sucks(I do >believe that there is a consensus that Cygwin setup sucks). There has recently been a rash of generalizations about cygwin where people feel empowered to speak for a collection of users as if they were a representative. I've actually talked to more than one person who thought that setup.exe is "slick". I don't agree that this is the case and I doubt that the reason "companies" distribute their own version of Cygwin is because of setup.exe. Most situations that we see here are due to a company or individual who wants to just use the Cygwin DLL with their own product and doesn't want to provide an installer which installs the whole distribution. YMMV, but, in this particular case, unless you have actual examples, I think you are starting from a flawed premise. That is not to say that setup.exe doesn't need to be improved, however. 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/