New symlinks.

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 05:58:32PM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Faylor [ mailto:cgf@redhat.com ]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:06 PM
>> To: Cygwin
>> Subject: Re: New symlinks.
>> 
>> 
>>On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 01:52:44PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>>another icon ;^).  Don't underestimate people using
>>Windows; most of them are
>>>>not idiots and are used to Windows idiosyncrasisms, so
>>when using cygwin
>>>>they can adapt :-)
>>>
>>>I wonder...
>>>
>>>*restrain sarcasm*
>>>
>>>...anyway, you may be right here ;-)
>>
>>I HEARTILY disagree with this.  We have repeatedly see the confusion of
>>people on this mailing list on all matter of subjects.  I have no
>>reason to assume that having files with a .lnk extension will be any
>>different -- especially since Microsoft goes out of its way to hide the
>>extension itself.
>
>People that only use the Windows GUI would be confused by the ".lnk"
>extension if shown by cygwin, but as we don't show it by default
>there's no problem.  OTOH people used to CMD.exe will be used to the
>lnk suffix (as DIR shows it) but should understand that cygwin is doing
>the same as Explorer, and hide it.

I'm sorry but you are never, ever going to be able to convince me that
people will not be confused by the existence of a file with a '.lnk'
extension where they didn't specifically create one.  That's why I
am advocating that it be hidden as much as possible.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple