Re: frivolous naming suggestion

["David Monk" <david at purplebear dot net>]

Perhaps this is an idea for the future of Cygwin. Make it into a UNIX-like
distribution on Windows. People somewhat use it that way anyway. I know I
do, to a degree.
Define a set of standards or policies that dictate what makes up a
distribution release. Then determine what is required to mandate a newer
full release. And allow people, as with other UNIX distributions, to still
pull updates of the cygwin dll or individual packages.
Or perhaps this is an idea for a seperate distribution that includes xfree86
and other things not part of cygwin itself. It could even lighten the load
on you guys developing the dll. You would be the kernel developers and
others could develop distributions.

The reason this is so interesting to me is, to be honest, I like Windows. I
keep trying and trying Linux and others on the desktop, but I always return
to Windows. I do use other Unices considerably as servers, but nothing,
IMHO, touches Windows on the desktop, especially with cygwin and all my
familiar UNIXy tools.

David Monk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Corinna Vinschen" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: frivolous naming suggestion


> On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 03:02:27PM -0500, David Monk wrote:
> > > The Cygwin net release process is more related to Linus's release of
> > > kernels than to Red Hat's release of commercial packages.
> > >
> > > AFAIK, Linus does not code name his releases.
> > >
> > > Since Red Hat does not really release a commercial product called
> > > "Cygwin", I think that the analogy doesn't really holds up.
> >
> >  I get that the actual cygwin1.dll is similar to just the Linux kernel
that
> > Linus releases. But would you not consider the Cygwin net release as a
type
> > of UNIX-like distribution to a degree? Especially since it is a
compilation
> > of many packages. It seems it would make since to have "kernel" (dll)
> > updates, but also full net distribution releases.
> >
> > Just a thought.
>
> Yeah, but the problem is that we don't have a real distribution
> release.  The packages are updated as needed so there's no fixed
> date that you could define as `release X of Cygwin'.  At which
> point would you then define the release of distro "Donald" and
> the begin of the development of "Scrooge"?
>
> If we decide to use nicknames for Cygwin release they could only
> be fixed to the releases of the Cygwin DLL itself, AFAICS.
>
> Besides that, I like the idea.  It gives the release of a DLL
> a sort of a personality.  I just wouldn't like to be bound to
> the names of a band I don't know...
>
> Corinna
>
> --
> Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
> Red Hat, Inc.
>
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
>
>


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/