This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
FW: press for cygwin
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Subject: FW: press for cygwin
- From: Mark Bradshaw <bradshaw at staff dot crosswalk dot com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:39:25 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:07 AM
> To: Mark Bradshaw
> Cc: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: Re: press for cygwin
> Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> > Hmm... Should I paint a bulls eye on my chest here. Eh. Why not.
> Actually, even a year ago it would have been a good idea to
> contact the
> list, or Red Hat, and asked for some fact-checking help.
> There are some
> errors in your article -- esp. the WinZip thing -- that we could have
> helped you avoid prior to publication.
> Most opensource projects are so overjoyed to get press that
> they will be
> very helpful to writers and reporters. (And it IS possible to get
> fact-checking help from your primary sources without giving up your
> journalistic independence or integrity.)
I did contact the list. Had the help of some members. WinZip was an
acceptable choice at the time. The packages weren't in bz2 format, and I
don't need symlinks, etc. for the install to work.
> > Couple of quick notes on the thread.
> > 1) Complete agreement with Jonathon Merz on the WinZip
> thing. Going to bz2
> > just to thwart WinZip doesn't seem like a good use of
> energy. Unfortunately
> > at the time I wrote the article bz2 wasn't in use for the
> packages. WinZip,
> > being the most popular zip tool for Windows, seemed the
> obvious choice for
> > unzipping the cygwin packages. You wouldn't believe how
> long it takes to
> > get an article printed. :(
> But you missed the point of my original response: WinZip creates a
> *broken* installation. The necessary registry entries are
> not created,
> and many packages contain symlinks which WinZip won't recreate. I'm
> surprised you were able to get it to work at all, when
> installing using
> WinZip. (You *did* test your own instructions on a clean
> machine, right?)
It's not broken if you're just installing ssh, which is all the article
covers. Yes, I did test it.
> > 2) Goes the same for the references to old versions, etc.
> The article's
> > almost a year old now, believe it or not.
> Well, that's forgivable, then. :-)
> > 3) Yes I know it's an unsupported install, but I think the
> point was missed
> > here. Many windows admins won't install the full cygwin
> installation, and
> > most won't have a clue what to do with bash, etc. The
> point here isn't to
> > exclude people from a great tool, but to help make an
> intermediate step more
> > palatable. I know many will disagree with this, with
> sentiments along the
> > lines of "They should just learn how to work with it." I
> disagree. I think
> > it's worth it to get telnet replaced, in whatever fashion
> that happens.
> > Bashless or not.
> The following reference wasn't available "back then" but it is now:
> Michael Erdeley has a nice reference on a minimal ssh/cygwin
Thanks for the link. I'm aware of Michael's info. In fact, I'm on his list
and answer questions from time to time.
> > 4) The weird "ps &-ef" and "kill &-HUP <PID>" commands are
> not my fault.
> > <whine> The publisher's somehow managed to screw up some
> of the command
> > lines. </whine> They will be corrected soon hopefully.
> Yeah, that's what I thought.
> > I apologize if I've stepped on some toes with this article.
> I know that
> > here I'm talking to the folks who are satisfied with the full cygwin
> > install, or are knowledgeable enough about it to install
> the portions
> > necessary without the hand holding. You aren't the target
> audience for a
> > piece like this. I hoped to catch those people who are
> largely unaware of
> > cygwin and ssh and maybe give them a push into using it.
> Our main complaint comes from this: hand holding for newbies
> is a good
> and necessary thing -- but the instructions given need to be
> And if your instructions are wrong, or lead to a broken
> installation --
> *WE* (the cygwin project) get the blame for a "crappy product". "I
> tried that piece of #@!^ but couldn't get it to work." etc.
> Or, "I followed the instructions at .... and STILL can't get
> cygwin to
> work" messages on the mailing list.
Understood. Feel free to point them my way. "He did it."
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html