Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:20:40 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Link for MORE Message-ID: <20020319152040.GE949@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: <20020319142909 DOT 38924 DOT qmail AT web20003 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020319142909.38924.qmail@web20003.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 06:29:09AM -0800, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote: >>I have no objection if the original contributors want to take the >>cygutils source package, rip out everything that isn't (for instance) >>'mkshortcut'-related, and release a standalone autotool'ed mkshortcut. >>(However, I'm not pushing for that.) > >Personally, I feel a good test is whether it's something people are going >to look for coming from another *NIX platform or not. There are people who are >looking for the pager 'more' since that's what they used on SunOS 1.0 or >something. No one is going to be asking, "Why doesn't cygwin have 'mkshortcut' >or 'cygstart'!?!?" since they are cygwin-specific. (Not entirely true of, for >example, unix2dos but close.) Conversely, someone could ask "Why do I have to get mkshortcut when all that I wanted was cygstart!?!?" cgf