Re: press for cygwin

[Charles Wilson <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>]

Mark Bradshaw wrote:

> Hmm...  Should I paint a bulls eye on my chest here.  Eh.  Why not.


Actually, even a year ago it would have been a good idea to contact the 
list, or Red Hat, and asked for some fact-checking help.  There are some 
errors in your article -- esp. the WinZip thing -- that we could have 
helped you avoid prior to publication.

Most opensource projects are so overjoyed to get press that they will be 
very helpful to writers and reporters.  (And it IS possible to get 
fact-checking help from your primary sources without giving up your 
journalistic independence or integrity.)


> 
> Couple of quick notes on the thread.  
> 
> 1)  Complete agreement with Jonathon Merz on the WinZip thing.  Going to bz2
> just to thwart WinZip doesn't seem like a good use of energy.  Unfortunately
> at the time I wrote the article bz2 wasn't in use for the packages.  WinZip,
> being the most popular zip tool for Windows, seemed the obvious choice for
> unzipping the cygwin packages.  You wouldn't believe how long it takes to
> get an article printed. :(


But you missed the point of my original response: WinZip creates a 
*broken* installation.  The necessary registry entries are not created, 
and many packages contain symlinks which WinZip won't recreate. I'm 
surprised you were able to get it to work at all, when installing using 
WinZip.  (You *did* test your own instructions on a clean machine, right?)


> 
> 2)  Goes the same for the references to old versions, etc.  The article's
> almost a year old now, believe it or not.


Well, that's forgivable, then. :-)


> 3)  Yes I know it's an unsupported install, but I think the point was missed
> here.  Many windows admins won't install the full cygwin installation, and
> most won't have a clue what to do with bash, etc.  The point here isn't to
> exclude people from a great tool, but to help make an intermediate step more
> palatable.  I know many will disagree with this, with sentiments along the
> lines of "They should just learn how to work with it."  I disagree.  I think
> it's worth it to get telnet replaced, in whatever fashion that happens.
> Bashless or not.


The following reference wasn't available "back then" but it is now: 
Michael Erdeley has a nice reference on a minimal ssh/cygwin installation.

http://tech.erdeleynet.com/cygwin-sshd.asp


> 4)  The weird "ps &-ef" and "kill &-HUP <PID>" commands are not my fault.
> <whine>  The publisher's somehow managed to screw up some of the command
> lines.  </whine>  They will be corrected soon hopefully.


Yeah, that's what I thought.


> I apologize if I've stepped on some toes with this article.  I know that
> here I'm talking to the folks who are satisfied with the full cygwin
> install, or are knowledgeable enough about it to install the portions
> necessary without the hand holding.  You aren't the target audience for a
> piece like this.  I hoped to catch those people who are largely unaware of
> cygwin and ssh and maybe give them a push into using it.  
> 


Our main complaint comes from this:  hand holding for newbies is a good 
and necessary thing -- but the instructions given need to be accurate. 
And if your instructions are wrong, or lead to a broken installation -- 
*WE* (the cygwin project) get the blame for a "crappy product".  "I 
tried that piece of #@!^ but couldn't get it to work."  etc.

Or, "I followed the instructions at .... and STILL can't get cygwin to 
work" messages on the mailing list.

--Chuck


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/