RE: Cut down xfree server for XDMCP only

["Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at syncretize dot net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Nolan [mailto:ben@ripcord.co.nz] 
> Sent: Saturday, 15 June 2002 7:09 PM
> To: Robert Collins; cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Cut down xfree server for XDMCP only
> 
> 
> Or.
> 
> Use the current name with the knowledge that the people we 
> are targeting at
> aren't going to want to use a 3rd party launcher app at the 
> same time as
> their cygwin distro.

That's up to you. As long as that are clear that the two won't play
nicely together, then it's completely your choice. I do know that any
support requests on such installs will create confusion all around,
which is unfortunate. But again, you choice.
 
> Honestly,
> 
> We aren't targetting at developers. We are targetting at 
> schools / govt
> offices who need access to x-based apps as a intermediate 
> step to linux
> desktops. And although I appreciate your comments, the out 
> and out criticism
> really isn't that helpful.

It wasn't meant as criticism. It was 
a) An agreement that what you have identified as problematic is indeed
problematic.
b) A checklist of things to do when forking a cygwin install, as it's
been covered in depth and you may not have known the details.
c) A slightly sarcastic/humorous suggestion about an alternate approach
that I believe is more effective, useful and manageable. 

But hey, call it criticism.
 
> Do you expect every administrator that wants to install 
> cygwin on umpteen
> boxes to set up a custom cygwin install script and 
> site-specific batch files
> to use the cygwin X server? That's elitist.

Elitist? As in rule by the elite? Well, no that's hardly appropriate, if
only because no one is trying to rule you. As in snobbery? Again, I
don't think so. I'm not discounting your opinions, or efforts. As in
being concious of belonging to an elite? Nope. 

Seriously, setting aside the question of whether elitism is bad in a
meritocracy - which open source projects claim to be. And also setting
aside whether such an expectation *is* elitist...

I do not expect every administrator to do what you list above. I think
that you should do that - that is part of the value of your current
all-in-one download. There is no reason that that cannot be done via
cygwin's setup.exe, thus incorporating all the net resources, updates,
and gaining immediate co-existence with existing installs, removing the
issue of dll names/paths/shared memory areas.

I am at a complete loss to understand how you went from my suggestion to
thinking I had such an expectation.

Ah well,

Rob