X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTil0pNuO4a9n2Ln5H3Q0cJRdQER7NlgSTg2a9EN2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <OFF145E76E DOT EB43EC60-ON8525773C DOT 005639A6-8525773C DOT 005650D6 AT lnotes-gw DOT ent DOT nwie DOT net> <AANLkTil0pNuO4a9n2Ln5H3Q0cJRdQER7NlgSTg2a9EN2 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: 'cp' utility bug when <dest-name>.exe file exist.
X-KeepSent: CB72527D:F8E42EE2-8525773C:0058E3E2; type=4; name=$KeepSent
Message-ID: <OFCB72527D.F8E42EE2-ON8525773C.0058E3E2-8525773C.0059F451@lnotes-gw.ent.nwie.net>
From: RISINGP1 AT nationwide DOT com
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:22:32 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
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

>> I disagree.  This seems to me to be adopting the Microsoft policy of 
doing
>> the user's thinking for them:  "I don't care what they want - we know
>> what's best for them."  If a person wants to have "foo" and "foo.exe" 
in
>> the same directory, that should be allowed.  A few times getting 
tripped
>> up by the wrong thing executing will be a good life lesson for the 
person,
>> and teach about how different operating systems work to boot.  Should I
>> create "foo" as an executable, and "foo.exe" exists, then if I want to 
run
>> "foo.exe", I should have to call it out specifically.  I can see this
>> might cause some confusion should, unbeknownst to the user, "foo.exe"
>> exists earlier in the path than "foo", but that would become an
>> education on how to use the PATH variable.  This confusion arises
>> from Cygwin's kowtowing to Microsoft's dubious idea of using extensions 
to
>> control the handling of files.
>
>If you took away Cygwin's .exe extension handling and just relied on
>file permissions like Unix, then using Cygwin tools from a cmd.exe
>prompt would become problematic.
>
>Windows wants that .exe (or .bat or .cmd or .msi, etc) extension and
>doesn't give a whip if you chmod a file's permissions +x.  Without an
>extension, Windows has no idea what to do with the file.
>
>That's fine if you never do anything with Cygwin commands outside of a
>Cygwin shell, but I don't think this is a globally desirable
>behaviour.
>

Just a question:

Shouldn't it be up to the user to determine how a file is to be used, and
name the file accordingly?

If the file is to used only in a Cygwin environment, leave the extension
off is desired.

If the file is to used in both a Cygwin and a Windows environment, add an
extension (like ".sh" or ".exe" or whatever is needed).  It is easy enough
to teach Windows how to recognize what to do with a new extension (like
".sh").

I am just against operating systems making decisions for the user, or
restricting him/her unnecessarily.  And, yes, I know that this happens
all the time...

Phil Rising    risingp1 AT nationwide DOT com

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