From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Faylor To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: versions/compatibilities FAQ request Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 19:41:00 -0000 Message-id: <20000905224028.A6939@cygnus.com> References: <20000906023148.4901.qmail@web108.yahoomail.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-09/msg00182.html On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 07:31:48PM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote: >--- Chris Faylor wrote: >>On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 08:39:12PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: >>>The shortcut in the start menu, for starters. Should we change it? If >>>so, to what? >> >>I'd suggest 1.1.x. I actually changed it to this in later versions of >>the non-GUI installer. It used to be 1.1.0 and that caused problems so >>I changed it to 1.1.x. > >Why denote the version on the shortcut? Why not just Cygwin? And >don't tell me to look at the DLL naming thread. ;^) Um. Because. Um. You know what? It shouldn't even be Cygwin. It should be Bash. That's what gets started, right? But then we get people who think that the whole system is "bash". (I'm not kidding. I had a long email exchange with one person who bashed his bash every bash sentence and couldn't bash understand why the bash B20 processes were hanging. He'd carefully bash uninstalled his bash and reinstalled but was unable to bash the latest bash because all he could bash was cygwin. Or something like that.) So, how about naming the shortcut "Cygwin Bash Shell"? I know it's redundant (personal PIN number anyone?) but maybe it is clear enough? cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com