Re: bash-3.1-7^[$B!!^[(BBUG

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 06:09:03PM -0700, Volker Quetschke wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:46:28PM -0700, Volker Quetschke wrote:
>(snip)
>> 
>>Do I have to make the observation again that whether this is the case
>>or not, it is not a primary goal of the Cygwin project to support these
>>people?
>
>Yes.  Did it ever cross your mind that the whole "Linux on Windows"
>thing is pretty useless if it cannot be used in the "real world".

Death of Cygwin predicted?  Everybody panic and/or sip?

>I mean, if people want to have a plain vanilla Linux thingy they can
>just install it.  Grab a Redhat, Suse or Debian DVD and everything
>works fine.

I suspect that the "Well, they can just install Linux (floppies, CDs,
DVDs) if they feel like it" observation has been made several times a
year for the last ten years.  It's obviously not a very powerful
argument since Cygwin is still here and you can't really assert that the
only reason it is here is because make understood MS-DOS paths or bash
dealt properly with \r\n line endings.

I doubt that Eric will want to deal with the fallout of having bash not
understand \r\n line endings but, if he does, it would be his decision
and, again, I would support it 100%.  I am very eager to see things like
configure scripts work faster and if we have to drop a few scared or
lazy people along the way to accomplish that goal, that's fine with me.
I have no problem at all with being a part of a smaller community which
doesn't need to use notepad to edit their bash scripts.

cgf

--
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/