Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <3B3A01ED.4080904@ece.gatech.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:55:25 -0400
From: "Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:0.9.1) Gecko/20010607 Netscape6/6.1b1
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Fred T. Hamster" <fred AT gruntose DOT com>
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin: Open or Closed System? (was: two problems with cygwin's zip)
References: <993648794 DOT 12881 DOT ezmlm AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> <3B39F797 DOT 7000608 AT gruntose DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Fred -

Because of the nature of cygwin, there are two types of users: those 
that see cygwin as a way to "pretend you're using linux while in 
windows", and those that want to use unix-oriented tools from the 
windows environment.

The former run bash as their main shell.  The latter use 
cmd.exe/command.com as their main shell.  Most of your open-source 
hacker-types are in category 1; almost ALL of the cygwin maintainers and 
developers fit into the category 1.

Therefore, you will see a definite preeminence of the concerns of the 
"make it work just like linux" people -- because we're the ones doing 
most of the work.  HOWEVER, the commercial interests are in favor of the 
"use unix tools from windows" people -- because many of the GNUpro 
customers are in category 2.  However, the GNUpro customers do NOT, as a 
rule, contribute anything (other than $$) back to the cygwin net 
release.  While we category 1 people *try* to be reasonable, the truth 
is that if the concerns of category 2 people are to be acted upon or 
gain influence, some category 2 people are going to have to step forward 
as maintainers or contributors.  For instance, it would be nice if a 
cabal of command.com users began to audit packages for 
command.com-friendliness -- and developed patches.  This is similar to 
Earnie's role in the past: he was (and is) an active contributor who 
used text-mounts exclusively; you could always count on him to point out 
text/binary mount problems with new executables.  (He doesn't do *that* 
much anymore; I don't know if he considers all such bugs squashed or if 
he just gave up...:-)

Anyway, *as long as the bash users are not harmed* I think glob() could 
stand some work.  However, as has been mentioned, the win32-vs-cygwin 
handling in glob() has been delicately tuned over many years; you will 
have a substantial burden of proof (do no harm to unixiods, improve 
win32-behavior) in order to get your changes accepted.  That's just the 
way of things.  Good luck.

--Chuck

P.S. I'm not actually sure your concerns with zip will actually be 
addressed by changes to cygwin's glob() function...



--
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/