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 Message-ID: <3B3A3051.2000000@gruntose.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:13:21 -0400 From: "Fred T. Hamster" MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin: Interoperability Is Important (was Cygwin: Open or Closed System, etc) References: <3B391600 DOT 6080408 AT gruntose DOT com> <3B3947DE DOT 7009F7DA AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> <3B39625A DOT 9080603 AT gruntose DOT com> <006301c0ff13$e32b4860$81d9a818 AT cox DOT rr DOT com> <3B3A040D DOT 1090609 AT gruntose DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit funny post (see attachment). i started different topics, since the topic had obviously morphed. i wasn't doing it just to be different. i'm already too different apparently. as to whether the backslash issue's treatment being modified increases or decreases order, i guess one would have to consider both the users of the system and the real possibilities for harm that could be caused. regarding users, is it really being advocated that cygwin is unix, burrowed into win32, but not supporting any of those still stuck in the windows world at all? all users must sprechen diesen wunderslashes from unix? it may be unbelievable, but i do prefer to use only forward slashes as often as possible. it is not always possible. the world, unfortunately, does not revolve around cygwin. and yes, i know it doesn't revolve around me either. as to the potential harm that could result, i really think it's being overstated. in most cases, the path's wildcard resolution will lead to a very clear set of results. in a few cases, some interpretation may be required before coming to the final list of files. i do not believe that the suggested change would signficantly detract from the ability of the unix user to specify files accurately, but i do believe that it will help those win32-afflicted people out who might otherwise never bother with cygwin. is it being said that these people should just go away and never touch cygwin? such a viewpoint really would seem a bit odd for a project to take unless the project was explicitly inimical to those potential users. and i don't believe that's the case. one issue that hasn't been stated: i do not wish to try to change the way everyone uses their slashes at the place where i work. that is an uninteresting exercise in OS theology which i will not engage in anytime soon. perhaps it was a mistake to think that the cygwin environment was really the right choice for getting work done with these officemates, since many of them have a microsoft tool-user history. but i persist in thinking the issues are not so devastating that a modified implementation would not succeed in supporting them as well. indeed, thanks to the cygwinners for making a very powerful and flexible system. nipping at minor points that seem less than optimal is not intended to harm; it is kind of like, well, a bug report. i think the controversy has arisen mainly because "the bug" has been deemed "not a bug". i would fight just as diligently against a bug report being rejected at work as "as designed" if i sincerely believed that either it really was a bug or that the design needed improvement. it is no slight to suggest that a piece of software has bugs or room for improvement. all significantly complex software does. thanks, fred. -- _____ chosen by the Nechung Oracle Program [ http://www.gruntose.com/ ] _____ My girlfriend and I went on a picnic. I don't know how she did it, but she got poison ivy on the brain. When it itched, the only way she could scratch it was to think about sandpaper. -- Steven Wright _____________ not necessarily my opinions, not necessarily not. _____________ Ronald W. Cook wrote: Dear Mr. Hamster, I, for one, do not wish to preserve or further the use of the backslash as you intend - by extending or enhancing its use in cygwin even, if it means going out of one's way to prevent it. I for one do not wish to preserve of further the use of the English system. We will have to go out of our way to correct this - laissez faire costs too much. I for one do not wish to preserve the use of MM/DD/YYYY or DD/MM/YYYY which some don't understand when the obvious logical choice should be YYYY/MM/DD, which EVERYONE understands. We will have to go out of our way to correct this - laissez faire costs too much. I for one do not wish to count my money backwards in starting a new "just to be different" thread. I for one do not wish to start saying time MM:SS:HH in starting a new thread. No one would understand. There is a reason to seek order - it improves communication and can prevent $300,000,000 mistakes (and lives?) as was not too latey demonstrated. We will have to go out of our way to correct this - laissez faire costs too much. Chaos or order? Some will gravitate toward one. Thanks to the Cygwinners. Ron Cook www.cowaro.com -- 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/