Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Authentication-Warning: slinky.cs.nyu.edu: pechtcha owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:43:35 -0500 (EST) From: Igor Pechtchanski Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: idea for a new project, libntcmd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 03:09:43PM -0800, Rafael Kitover wrote: > > >>Really? Or would it simply delay them learning the knowledge to > > >>function in an environment that does not make specific allowances for > > >>them? > > > > > >Well, the goal would be for new cygwin users, who often have little > > >knowledge of UNIX, to have more space to get comfortable in learning > > >the environment. > > > > I would challenge the assertion that new cygwin users often have little > > knowledge of UNIX. Vocal people on this mailing list do make this > > assertion from time to time but there is no hard data to support that > > claim. > > I came to Cygwin so many years ago with little knowledge of UNIX. And I'm so > hard you could bounce quarters off my abs ;-). > > > In absence of hard data, I am (perhaps naively) sticking with the > > assumption that the core goal for the project of providing UNIX > > emulation for Windows for people who want UNIX tools, is still valid. > > > > Sure it is, but just because people want UNIX tools on Windows, that doesn't > mean they know much about them. In my case, I wanted UNIX tools because the > native Windows ones were so pathetic, and I knew (via conversations with others, > reading some docs, etc etc) that, say, GNU make wiped the floor with MS's nmake. > And it's of course common knowledge that command.com and cmd.exe are exactly > worthless compared to even the weakest of UNIXoid shells. But I certainly knew > little about how to actually get the most out of them until well after I had > first installed Cygwin. > > > I guess it's remotely possible that someone would want UNIX tools > > because they're interested in UNIX but don't know anything about it. If > > that is the case, then (as I think has already been mentioned) offering > > them Windows commands or, especially, paths doesn't sound like it would > > be doing them any favors. > > Having been one of those remotely possible people, I have to agree. For paths > there's cygpath; for "dir" etc, cut command.com loose. Throw the bathwater out > with that baby, step up to the UNIX plate, and don't look back lest ye be turned > into a pillow of salt. It's better here. I have to agree with the majority opinion for this thread: a cmd.exe clone under Cygwin would not really be useful for Unix newbies. Making it easier to use old tools has never hastened the transition to new ones. If anything, a more useful tool would be a bat2sh translator. :-D The only advantage I can see in the proposed package over the vanilla cmd.exe is that it could be made tty-aware (but even that is questionable, and only useful if one is invoking Cygwin programs from batch files -- and why would one want to do *that*?). Igor P.S. A special note to Gary: "a *pillow* of salt"? ;-) -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big* RAMdisk! -- /usr/games/fortune -- 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/