Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 17:09:58 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygintl-3.dll was not found
Message-ID: <20060809210958.GA3815@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <58fb98730601070837k26ad68f5l AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <43BFEFB9 DOT EA24C5B4 AT dessent DOT net> <5718434 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <003001c6bb9a$4e15b140$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <5732487 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5732487.post@talk.nabble.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:38:47PM -0700, infoterror wrote:
>Remember, I predicted the "thin intelligences" would lash out at those from
>outside their tribe who dare comment on their work.

It really isn't that hard to predict what kind of response you'll get.
When one uses confrontational language as a first foray into a public
forum, it is easy to predict that one will not necessarily receive
measured, informed responses.

>They're underconfident and unstable, and would rather accuse others of
>being wrong than admit problems exist.  Watch:

If you have such little confidence in the intelligence of the people who
run the project, you really should not be using Cygwin at all, should
you?  Given all of the things Cygwin purports to do, it seems like it
could be a dangerous to run, given that it is developed by people who
can only handle pre-defined tasks and are incapable of critical
decisions.  If we made such stupid choices about our use of installer
and location for installation, who knows what kind of deadly decisions
we made in the guts of the program?

Btw, have you noticed that the only thing you've been "accused" of so
far is being a troll?  In my experience, when people employ this type of
confrontational personal communication (accusing people of being
underconfident and unstable) it is usually pretty indicative of someone
who doesn't really want to discuss issues.  However, no one has yet
attempted to offer you a pseudo-psychological assessment.  Does that
give you pause at all?

I'll gladly drop the troll assumption if you're willing to forgo terms
like "a disaster", "underconfident", "unstable", "foolish".  Are you
willing to do that?

>>This thread was over a month ago and the guy went away happy with a
>>solution to his problems.
>
>Problems remain and I'm pointing them out.  You don't want to get
>better at what you're doing, don't you?

I can't speak for Dave but when you posted a section of the FAQ under
"Here is the relevant information:" it seemed to me like you were still
trying to address the OP's concerns after they had already been dealt
with.

>>Can you state a simple procedure that anyone can follow to reproduce
>>this bug?  Reproducing it is vital to help us determine whether it's
>>something in the software or something in the OS environment or
>>hardware where you are using it.
>
>Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, we are, aren't we?  In fact it almost seems like Dave was willing
to admit that a problem existed wasn't he?  Hmm.

>>You're the one who is complaining about something being non-standard.  Your
>>desire for conformity belies your claims to out-of-the-box thinking ability. 
>
>No, my friend, wanting to be dysfunctional instead of seeing the truth is
>the ultimate conformity.
>
>When one is in a Windows environment, it makes sense to adapt one's product
>to those standards.

Standards such as?  A pointer to a free installer which uses Windows
standards and which will handle Cygwin's needs would be useful, e.g.,
would NSIS meet your needs?  We've discussed using NSIS in the past.

I'm sure that there must be some out there and since you have such
strong feelings on the matter, maybe you're familiar with them?  If
you're not that's ok.  I'm just curious.

FYI, you seem to be implying that this is some sort of UNIX installer
when it really is just a home-grown Windows installer designed to handle
Cygwin's needs.  I have no problems with the user interface but I do
understand that some Windows users find it unintuitive.

>Under windows, programs are installed by default in "C:\Program Files."
>cygwin's preferred "c:\cygwin" is foolish and makes an unnecessary mess
>of installations.

I disagree.  Not all packages install in "c:\Program Files" and putting
Cygwin's root directory there would mean extra typing, potential
"filename with spaces" problems, and, most importantly, it would mean 10
extra characters eaten from the MAX_PATH limit.  Also, as is pointed out
later in this thread, there is a whole filesystem underneath the
c:\cygwin directory.  Right or wrong, I've always considered Cygwin to
be sort of a parallel to the Windows directory.

You can, of course, choose your own location, however.  I don't see why
this should be a big issue for anyone who installs Cygwin.  If they know
about "c:\Program Files" and think that's the place that cygwin should
go, they are welcome to put things there.

What kind of problems do you think are being caused by installing to
"c:\cygwin" and/or what kind of problems would be solved by installing
to "c:\Program Files\cygwin"?

cgf

--
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/