Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the whole Cygwin release/ distribution

[Jani Tiainen]

Mike Kenny - BCX - Infrastructure Services wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com 
>>[mailto:cygwin-owner@cygwin.com]On Behalf
>>Of David Christensen
>>Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 4:15 AM
>>To: cygwin@cygwin.com
>>Subject: RE: Request for a version/ revision/ release number for the
>>whole Cygwin release/ distribution
> 
> ....
> ....
> 
>>>I don't think there are enough potential volunteer man-hours to make
>>
>>such a thing feasible.
>>
>>I disagree.  Assume for a moment that all Cygwin project member
>>development efforts can be put into the following bins:

Well, there might be plenty of potential volunteer hours, but since it's 
voluteer, people can prioritize their efforts as they wish...

>>1.  Code development.
>>
>>2.  Design documentation.
>>
>>3.  Test suite development.
>>
>>4.  Test suite documentation.
>>
>>5.  Test suite execution and reporting.
>>
>>6.  User documentation.
>>
>>7.  Packaging for distribution.
>>
>>8.  Infrastructure development.
>>
>>9.  Infrastructure administration.
>>
>>10. Version control/ configuration management of all of the above.
>>
>>11. Personnel leadership and project management.
>>
>>It would seem that bin #1 is consuming the majority of the effort.  I
>>think that by changing priorities and re-allocating people and
>>resources, it should be possible to create integration tests and a
>>"stable" distribution.  Such would increase Cygwin's acceptance and
>>usage for potentially hundreds of millions of people.  Is this not a
>>good thing?

Well potential... and potential. Who would use Cygwin and what for? 
Cygwin doesn't really offer anything that Joe Average needs or even 
bothers to learn since it's "difficult".

For advanced users, system operators and such Cygwin gives lot more. But 
it definitely reduces potentials down.

For a corporations there is magic word called "tech support".

> 
> It seems to me that as it is a volunteer community, the people in 
> question would need to volunteer to be re-allocated. This does not 
> seem to be happening. :-) 

It seems that it isn't happening and I think it takes a whole lot more 
time and personel to volunteer their time to all those "bins".

And since many of packages are open source, builts are targeted on *nix 
systems, primary maintenance happens outside cygwin eg. level of 
documentation, testing, testcases and such varies greatly. Then there is 
cygwin specific maintainers that just make sure that package compiles 
and works okay (as specified by original author(s)) and builds 
distribution package. And then there is people who work for core of 
cygwin, cygwin1.dll...

Always have to think of target audience.

If you're looking something "simple" you can take a look for "TheOpenCD" 
project, OSI licensed software for average users. Or less professional 
looking "GnuWin2" project, also OSI licensed software for advanced 
propellerheads.

Both offer many OSS software as native builds, with nice standard gui 
installers and such.

But how about Cygwin? Cygwin installation provides only basically list 
of packages and you really have to know what you're doing before you get 
something useful out.

Maybe it would be just enough to produce better installation program, 
maybe even possiblity to categorize tools like you could just say "C and 
C++ development tools" and you get all needed stuff to build programs, 
maybe even in neat single download package. After that you could name 
installation package as "Cygwin Environment version 99.99" and refer 
people to download and use that specified package.

Hmm... NSIS could even work this out pretty well... I might even try 
that one if there is enough interest for that.

-- 

Jani Tiainen


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/