Re: multiple cygwin installs

[Reini Urban <rurban at x-ray dot at>]

Christopher Faylor schrieb:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:11:40PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote:
> > Phil Betts wrote on Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:34 PM:
> > > <soapbox>
> > > Any 3PP that forces one to use their (inevitably out of date) version
> > > of cygwin (and thereby killing the official installation) is IMO broken
> > > and the issue should be taken up with them.  At the very least, it
> > > shows they have such little faith in their own software's robustness
> > > that they won't risk it running on an newer version of cygwin.
> > >
> > > Imagine the chaos if ALL software was installed like this.  You might
> > > end up with 100 different versions of cygwin on your PC, and ProductA
> > > would never be able to talk to ProductB because they'd need two
> > > different sets of registry settings simultaneously.
> > >
> > > I'm sure their justification is that they are reducing support costs by
> > > ensuring it's running on a known platform.  Only if their customer
> > > support is forced to resolve the problems caused by their installation
> > > will they learn that this is a false economy.
> > > </soapbox>
> > Well, the soapbox is coming true.  Or why do you think so much
> > companies start to deliver their app in a VM?  Never trust an OS
> > installed by a stranger ...  hehehe
>
> This is probably cygwin-talk material (Reply-To set) but is that really
> true?  Are companies really packaging products with their own VM?

We are.
But we do business for Formula 1 and we don't want customers destroy 
real-time capabilities by installing spy-ware, certain virus checkers or 
defraggers and bother our support department. The customers equipment is 
quite expensive.