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 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:32:29 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install? Message-ID: <20030214193229.GA23190@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20030214182615 DOT GA20996 AT redhat DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:34:59PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> I tried an experiment recently where I turned on ftp access to the >> cygwin download directory on sources.redhat.com. The result seemed >> to be that people started downloading cygwin's package .tar.bz2 files >> directly and (somehow) used tar to extract files rather than running >> setup.exe. >> >> So, that experiment was a bad idea. I turned off access again. Yet, I >> still have the feeling that many people are downloading packages >> directly (from mirrors I suppose) and then we get to experience the >> maddening "I downloaded foo and it gives me an error about missing bar. >> What in the world could possibly be the problem????" >> >> Can anyone offer any explanation about this? Or maybe convince me that >> I'm wrong in noticing this trend? I suppose that it is possible that >> we are now hitting a newer stupider brand of user who just can't be >> bothered to read the cygwin web site and click on a link to download >> but I'm wondering if there is another explanation. Maybe there is >> a popular web page out there with wrong advice or something... >> >> cgf > >Well, guess what comes up first on a Google search for "cygwin install"? >See for yourself: (just in >case, the first match I get is , >last updated on March 24, 2000). :-( This is interesting but it doesn't really explain the problem since the site is so outdated. sourceware.cygnus.com doesn't even exist anymore. >I don't know if there's anything that can be done about it, though... How about if every able-bodied cygwin-mailing-list person sends email to this person and asks them to take the site down. FWIW, I've recently sent email to Mumit Khan for similar reasons. His "ancient" gnu-win32 site still shows up in google and some of the outdated techniques espoused there demonstrably cause confusion. cgf -- 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/