RE: Bug in startxwin.bat after installing with setup.exe in win98SE

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at yahoo dot com>]

--- Robert Collins <robert.collins@syncretize.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nicholas Wourms [mailto:nwourms@yahoo.com] 
> > Sent: Sunday, 14 July 2002 10:57 AM
> > To: Jehan Bing
> ...
> > No he isn't.  There are two ways that someone will interface 
> > with Cygwin,
> > via Console or via X11.  The other apps you mention are Console apps,
> > therefore you can't expect them to have shortcuts.  However X 
> > is much more
> > than an Application, it is an interface.  Therefore, one can 
> > argue that it
> > deserves setup.exe making it a shortcut just as much as 
> > setup.exe making
> > the console a shortcut.  Lastly, something you will not disagree with,
> > ALOT of people want to use just X and not the console, especially for
> > doing XDMCP.  This is even more reason why setup.exe should make the
> > shortcut.
> 
> The above is an argument for the creation of the shortcut, not for
> setup.exe creating it.
> 

Why should setup be more generic?  Why shouldn't it create the shortcuts? 
Why not reuse the exisiting code and then remove it when something better
comes along?  Why do you want to remove more stuff from setup.exe when you
haven't anything to replace it with?  I've noticed that all these shell
scripts flying by at the end pushes the stability of windows.  I've had a
few BSODs during their execution.  I think all this talk of making
setup.exe smaller is rubbish, it is only ~200KB for the love of God. 
Again the whole idea is to use the tools at hand, which in this case is
setup.exe.  Why not leverage it for all it is worth?  Why rely on shell
scripts when you have something more dependable?

Cheers,
Nichola

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com