This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: multiple cygwin installs
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Cc: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:21:37 -0400
- Subject: Re: multiple cygwin installs
- References: <F0D7281DAB048B438E8F5EC4ECEFBDDC014D0BEC@esmail.elsag.de>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
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:
>>Any 3PP that forces one to use their (inevitably out of date) version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.
>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?