Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:17:39 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: New symlinks. Message-ID: <20010228191739.A6115@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E21C AT IIS000> <20010228135244 DOT I8464 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20010228110624 DOT B2327 AT redhat DOT com> <006a01c0a1cd$1d6156e0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010228183219 DOT A5603 AT redhat DOT com> <004101c0a1e4$30e010a0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <004101c0a1e4$30e010a0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 11:11:38AM +1100 On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 11:11:38AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Christopher Faylor" >To: >Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 10:32 AM >Subject: Re: New symlinks. > >> The other thing is that I try extremely hard to limit the amount of >> adaptation that a user must endure to use Cygwin. I'm really not >> comfortable adding another incompatibility. > >This is a very valid point. On the other hand I'm not comfortable with >the idea that I cannot access the real files for some reason (ie if I >look at explorer and at a ls output, why aren't they the same? > >> > >> >And Microsoft have been publicly slammed by the security community on >> >this and a number of related actions because of the reduction in user >> >environment awareness. >> >> Are the people using Windows aware of this public slamming? I was >> discussing this issue with someone who works on Windows today and he >was >> enthusiastic about using Windows links. I mentioned that these links >> have a ".lnk" extension and he said "They do? I didn't know that." > >If they read or keep abreast of the number of ways that arbitrary code >can execute on their machines, then yes. But Microsoft have a wonderful >marketing machine. So, this really isn't an argument, then. The fact that Microsoft hides extensions may be terrible but it is something that people are used to. >> The bottom line is I don't care a fig about what is "correct". I'm >> concerned about surprising people. I'm not concerned about exposing >the >> ".lnk" for power users if it causes confusion for the vast majority of >> people who are not power users. I'm concerned about increasing >mailing >> list traffic by 10% when it could be avoided. > >Ok, so when you get 100's of emails. "I made a symlink on my samba >share, then I went to delete it via bash on the samba server and I >couldn't find the file", you'll be _glad_ there is no sign within cygwin >that a .lnk was created. Those kinds of emails are actually pretty rare. And, actually, we could work around this problem now by just checking if a Cygwin symbolic link file is read-only, just like we do for .lnk files. >If you don't show somewhere in cygwin that it is a .lnk file may well >end up surprising them anyway. I don't know why. If you can do all of your manipulation of the file without the extension then there is no reason to care about the extension. >> >My vote: we expose the.lnk at at least one place in the interface. We >> >also make it interoperate seamlessly for scripts/batch files etc. >> >> I'm not sure what "interoperate seamlessly" means. It would be nice >> if people would try what Corinna has implemented before offering >opinions. >> Or, maybe you have done this and are just reiterating Corinna's >> implementation. >> >By interopreate seamlessly I mean, don't break shell scripts or programs >that use lnks. (Obviously thats the goal, what I what trying to say is >'show the .lnk somewhere, don't break anything to achieve that). Um, yeah. That's a pretty obvious goal. Unfortunately, it definitely means not exposing the .lnk extension (unless *possibly* it is explicitly asked for). cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple