DOS <-> Bash interaction...

Wed Jan 29 01:43:00 GMT 2003

Original Message:
-----------------
>From: Soren A soren_andersen@fastmail.fm
>Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 22:31:18 +0000 (UTC)
>To: cygwin@cygwin.com
>Subject: Re: DOS <-> Bash interaction...
>
>
>"lhall@pop.ma.ultranet.com" <lhall@pop.ma.ultranet.com> wrote around 28
Jan 
2003 news:269620-22003122821248181@M2W089.mail2web.com:

>> This issue isn't Cygwin specific, since setting of the SHELL 
>> environament variable is handled by the shell itself.
>
>> As such, discussion of this is really off-topic for this list.
>
>Cygwin bash is a *port* of GNU bash to _Cygwin_. As I have previously
>written, this sort of discussion is IMNSHO *totally* ON-topic for
>Cygwin. 

Fine.  Everyone's entitled to an opinion.  However, if simply porting a 
package to Cygwin makes any discussion of that package at any level on-topic
for the Cygwin list, then the list will quickly become one-stop shopping
for 
anyone with a question from simple usage questions to complex internals on
hundreds and hundreds of packages, programs and utilities.  There are other 
lists and resources for these packages.  It's counter-productive for
Cygwin to try to encompass the totality of the resources that are out there
for all these areas.  But this has been discussed before here, as you know.
The prevailing wisdom has suggested that it makes sense not to duplicate
the 
effort of other site and projects, both because it's impossible and because 
it would drive the already high-volume of this list to new heights.  So
while 
you have your opinion and I have mine, we have to abide by the decisions
this
community makes and supports.

>There are many potential issues here that wouldn't come into
>play for bash users on a generic Unix platform. Furthermore, use of bash
>is assumed for most new users of Cygwin, some of whom will also be using
>a Unix-ish shell for the very first or nearly the very first time as
>part of their experiential introduction to Cygwin. If the intent is to
>exclude such users from Cygwin-usership, somewhat in the way that
>certain Chem or Physics courses are used (made intentially very
>difficult to pass) to "weed out" less gifted or prepared students in
>pre-med-track College programs, then this is a very effective way of
>doing that. "Don't offer any help with bash, reflexively condemn any
>raising of such Q's as OT, tell all posters to RTFM rather than discuss
>the finer points On-List" -- this sounds like a secret strategy and
>agenda to me.

This is the same argument you presented in your last round of rants on 
this subject.  It doesn't make sense to rehash it.  

>I wonder sometimes when you will tire of endlessly repeating this
>refrain, Larry. It would take less time to answer such questions (thus
>getting them into the Cygwin List archives) than the total time you've
>put into telling other people what to discuss or not to discuss. I
>myself am not tired of stating my disagreement with this POV and the
>reasons why. 

It seems not.  While I simply make the statement about what's on-topic and
not to keep discussions focused at the desire of the community, you seem
to take personal offense at the mention that something is off-topic.  I've
never understood why that is.  Your assertions about the time it takes to 
properly redirect the discussions elsewhere versus answering the questions
directly are unfounded as well.  I appreciate the honor you do me by 
implying that I have all the answers but even if that were true, there are
still answers to questions that take more than a few lines of response.
I don't intend to become "Mr. Tutorial" for any question.  That goes against
the principle of not duplicating effort, which I mentioned above.  I believe
in that principle and the etiqutte of this list says I should respect it.
So while I'm here, I do.

>> I found a quick check of the bash man page and searching for
>> SHELL shed allot of light on the subject however.  You might 
>> want to check it out yourself.  
>
>I think it owuld be a lot more interesting to discuss the manpage here.

Well, don't let me stop you from trying (I don't expect my attempts will be
very successful anyway).  However, I will point out that discussions about 
the Bash man page would be off-topic for this list if the issue you wish to 
discuss is not Cygwin-specific.

>> I don't set SHELL in any startup files or my Windows environment.
>> SHELL is always set to /bin/bash for me.
>
>OK, but is it exported?
>
>There is a difference between a shell variable that is _defined_ and one 
>that is _defined_ and _exported_. A functional difference that matters
very 
>much when spawning any sub-processes.

Ah, OK.  You caught me there.  I didn't answer your question and the 
man page I pointed you to didn't answer the question directly.  It did,
however, point you in the right direction, no? ;-)  OK, for you, just this
once, I'm going to answer your "off-topic" question.  Right here.  Right 
now.

It's not exported.

There.  I hope that helps.  

How did I find this little pearl of wisdom?  Why, I tried it!  I often 
find the greatest resources available are the tools in front of me.

>  Agreeing to disagree, as usual,

I haven't seen much evidence of this but as you say, everyone has their 
own opinion.

Larry

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

--
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/