This is the mail archive of the cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


--- Jehan <nahor@bravobrava.com> wrote:
> Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> > --- Jehan Bing <jehan@bravobrava.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Excuse me?  All I was suggesting is to reword the final setup screen
> to
> >>>something like the following:
> >>>
> >>>-Create Icon on Desktop for Cygwin Command Prompt
> >>>-Create Icon on Desktop for Cygwin/XFree86
> >>>-Add Icon to Start Menu for Cygwin Command Prompt
> >>>-Add Icon to Start Menu for Cygwin/XFree86
> >>>
> >>>Then have setup create the shortcuts in the same fasion it does
> >>
> >>already. 
> >>
> >>>Eventually, I'd like to have it gray-out the check boxes for
> >>>Cygwin/XFree86 if it is not already installed.  How is this not data
> >>>driven?  Isn't this what the setup program is for?  The last time I
> >>>checked, most Windows installers handled the shortcut creation.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Robert is right Nicholas (oh no not this guy again! :p). The question
> is
> >>
> >>why add XFree to the list and not SSH and RSH, and Lynx, and, and,
> >>and....
> >>And since we can create the shortcuts via the postinstall script, why
> do
> >>
> >>you want to add this feature to setup.exe?
> >>The script is not very cool looking, I give you that, but it's far
> more 
> >>flexible.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 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. 
> 
> Then I give you rxvt. I give you csh (afterall, cygwin.bat only starts
> bash)
> And just for the sake of arguing (I love that if you didn't notice :)), 
> XWin can also be launch from the console.
> Moreover some people install cygwin just to run ssh (see 
> http://www.networksimplicity.com/openssh/ which is a specific version of
> 
> cygwin/openssh). So they may want to have a shortcut that launches both 
> at the same time. Double-click on the shortcut and.. hop here is your 
> ssh shell.
> While I agree that this is problably less common than launch XWin, I 
> still think that X should not be treates in a special way. Actually, I 
> think that even cygwin should no treated in a special way by setup.exe. 
> Afterall, cygwin doesn't seem to require anymore special attention than 
> X, SSH or lynx.
> 
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> I'll just repeat what I said above: I actually argue that cygwin 
> *doesn't* deserve setup.exe making it a shortcut (but it seems than 
> Robert is trying to change that). After all, cygwin.bat only runs bash.
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Well, my new script does create a shortcut. So I'll reiterate what I 
> said in a previous post: what's wrong with the script? What is better 
> with having setup.exe creating the shortcut instead of the script?
> 

Because scripts are unreliable.  Because users are stupid.  Because people
like to have a GUI checkbox over a text console prompting them for input. 
You are admirable for defending your script, but the fact of the matter is
that people prefer the graphical setup.  Why?  Well look at the the
various linuxes out there, they are, for the most part, migrating to a
graphical install.  They don't rely on crummy shell scripts any more.  I
think you are missing the original point, Slashdot did an article on
Cygwin/XFree86, not Cygwin/OpenSSH, not Cygwin/RXVT.  The point is that X
is a special interface that deserves a special shortcut that is made by
setup.exe.  Until we have a data-driven database system which can interact
with setup.exe and respond to user input, this is probably the best bet. 
But realize that I'm not trying to tell people what to do, I'm just
strongly voicing my opinion.

Cheers,
Nicholas

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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]