Re: Bug in startxwin.bat after installing with setup.exe in win98SE

[Jehan <nahor at bravobrava dot com>]

Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> Why should setup be more generic?  
Because it's more flexible. We don't limit ourself to predefined 
behavior. Right now, only cygwin create a shortcut. Soon (hopefully) 
XWin will to. Tomorrow, SSH will want to. And rxvt. And csh...
We *have* a way to make shortcuts already, why don't you want to use it!?!?!


> Why shouldn't it create the shortcuts? 
You never answered my question: what's wrong with the script doing it?

> Why not reuse the exisiting code and then remove it when something better
> comes along?  
From experience, this thing rarely gets removed.

> Why do you want to remove more stuff from setup.exe when you
> haven't anything to replace it with?  
Are you listening? What is my script for?


> I've noticed that all these shell
> scripts flying by at the end pushes the stability of windows.  I've had a
> few BSODs during their execution.  
Really? Then there is bug that must be fixed. Working around it isn't a 
clean solution.
Otherwise, I agree that all those console window showing up isn't 
pretty. Maybe your fix could show only one window that would run all the 
scripts instead?


> I think all this talk of making
> setup.exe smaller is rubbish, it is only ~200KB for the love of God. 
> Again the whole idea is to use the tools at hand, which in this case is
> setup.exe.  Why not leverage it for all it is worth?  
Postinstall script is a tool at hand

> Why rely on shell
> scripts when you have something more dependable?
Then fix the bug in the script. They must work, we won't be able to 
completly get rid of them. Creating another feature just because one 
doesn't work isn't a solution. That's just give bloatware.

	Jehan