Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
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: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:26:27 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?
Message-ID: <20030215182627.GA27839@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20030215082300 DOT GF5822 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20030215180051 DOT 41956 DOT qmail AT web21406 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030215180051.41956.qmail@web21406.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 10:00:51AM -0800, Rick Rankin wrote:
>
>--- Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:34:30PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 09:42:19AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>> > >On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > >>I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are
>> > >>unaware of the setup program entirely.
>> > >
>> > >Hmm, I think we should add a new screen to setup.exe.
>> > >
>> > >After the install completes..
>> > >
>> > >"Your cygwin install is now ready to use.  Please run setup.exe again
>> > >if you want to Install new packages, Remove installed packages, or
>> > >Update your install with the latest versions of your installed
>> > >packages."
>> > 
>> > I like it.  Apparently it is extremely confusing to many people that
>> running
>> > "setup.exe" again is how you update your system, Microsoft conventions not
>> > withstanding.
>> 
>> So... hey, why is it called "setup"?  Isn't it, in the first place the
>> "Cygwin Package Manager"?  "cpm"?  Even the suffix of the archive files
>> could be cpm...
>> 
>Ahh, CP/M -- now *those* were the days... ;-)
>
>Anyway, I like the idea of calling it something akin to "package
>manager".  The name "setup" seems to imply a one-time action.
>Although, if the name were changed to, say, "Cygwin Package Manager" as
>suggested, there might have to be some additional verbage to explain to
>first-time users that you use the package manager to do both the
>initial install *and* subsequent updates.

We, IMO, are straying from the original question.  The issue of what
setup.exe is named really is irrelevant, IMO.  I sincerely doubt that
its name is responsible for people making the decision to download
packages by hand.  If names were important then no one would be using
cygwin at all.

"cyg" "win"?  What does that have to do with UNIX emulation for Windows?
I guess I won't use it because the name makes no sense.

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/