New symlinks.

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 08:26:27AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>>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 :-)
>
>If they are using cygwin I think a certain amount of adaptation _is
>required_. We're not trying to  build a new friendly GUI, we're trying
>to take one of the most flexible computing environments and put it on
>one of the least :]

We're also taking a step backwards "Symlinks used to work in 1.1.8 but
now all of my symlinks have a .lnk extension.  How do I get rid of that?"

Am I the only person who reads this mailing list regularly?  I can't
believe that anyone could seriously put forth an argument of "a certain
amount of adaptation is required".  For one thing, we have repeatedly
seen that every time we do diverge from UNIX (e.g., textmode/binmode)
people will complain about it and spend a lot of time offering "new"
"ideas" for how things could  be improved.

The other thing is that I try extremely hard to limit the amount of
adaptation that a user must endure to use Cygwin.  I'm really not
comfortable adding another incompatibility.

>> >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.
>
>And Microsoft have been publicly slammed by the security community on
>this and a number of related actions because of the reduction in user
>environment awareness.

Are the people using Windows aware of this public slamming?  I was
discussing this issue with someone who works on Windows today and he was
enthusiastic about using Windows links.  I mentioned that these links
have a ".lnk" extension and he said "They do?  I didn't know that."

The bottom line is I don't care a fig about what is "correct".  I'm
concerned about surprising people.  I'm not concerned about exposing the
".lnk" for power users if it causes confusion for the vast majority of
people who are not power users.  I'm concerned about increasing mailing
list traffic by 10% when it could be avoided.

>My vote: we expose the.lnk at at least one place in the interface. We
>also make it interoperate seamlessly for scripts/batch files etc.

I'm not sure what "interoperate seamlessly" means.  It would be nice
if people would try what Corinna has implemented before offering opinions.
Or, maybe you have done this and are just reiterating Corinna's
implementation.

cgf

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