X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: Windows 95 support ?
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:38:22 -0500
Message-ID: <000a01c66822$161ec590$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <444D0635.2060306@ukf.net>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

> From: Max Bowsher
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >> From: Corinna Vinschen
> >> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:38 AM
> >> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> >> Subject: Re: Windows 95 support ?
> >>
> >> On Apr 21 12:59, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> Ok, but the question remains: does cygwin still target windows 95?
> >> Just the setup tool has some problem, apparently.
> >> Cygwin still runs on 95, which will probably change at one point, 
> >> since it's getting incredibly awkward to support it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Corinna
> >>
> > 
> > Perhaps, but as long as the Cygwin DLL etc do support 95, it seems 
> > that Setup should be self contained and not require W95 users (all 
> > dozen of them
> > ;-)) to hunt down DLLs all over the internet.  Perhaps I'll 
> whip up a 
> > regular Setup installer which includes the necessary 
> redistributables.
> 
> Why bother?
> 

Meh, keeps me off the streets. ;-)

> To put this in perspective, this affects only users who are 
> using Windows 95 original edition (*not* any OSR version), 
> *AND* have not installed a non-ancient Internet Explorer version.
> 
> For this tiny minority, is it *really* worth the confusion of 
> a separate  Cygwin setup bundle,

Only if it's confusing, separate, and adds no other value.  Check it out and
see what you think:

http://home.att.net/~g.r.vansickle/cygwin/SetupInstaller/SetupInstaller.exe

Erase "Where do I put this darn setup.exe thing?!!?" off the FAQ! ;-)

> as compared with the 
> alternative of just writing a FAQ entry explaining how to get 
> the necessary prerequisites?
>
> Max.

Well, I could just as easily turn the agument around and ask, "Why bother
writing a FAQ entry that only a tiny minority of the tiny minority it
applies to is going to read?"  But mainly, as I said above, it seems rather
silly to me to have Cygwin operate on systems on which it can't be
installed.  This solves the problem.* 

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
* Assuming Sam or someone else confirms that it works of course.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/