Re: press for cygwin

Re: press for cygwin

[jmarshall]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> It actually is not trivial at all.

Well, it doesn't seem to be too bad.  The detection is pretty localised
in tar.cc.  Or perhaps I'm missing something?

> As I also keep mentioning, it
> requires that someone who cares about this will have to actually do it
> rather than report that it is possible to do it.

As people have probably noticed, I care about this. :-)

So I'm working on it.  My network connectivity is pretty random at the
moment, but I should be connected enough to show anyone interested in a
couple of days.

    John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .



--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:04:00AM -0400, jmarshall@pop.enterprise.net wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> It actually is not trivial at all.
>
>Well, it doesn't seem to be too bad.  The detection is pretty localised
>in tar.cc.  Or perhaps I'm missing something?

For the record, my original paragraph read like this:

"It actually is not trivial at all.  As I also keep mentioning, it
requires that someone who cares about this will have to actually do it
rather than report that it is possible to do it."

The non-triviality of the effort involves someone actually TAKING TIME
TO DO THE JOB.  That is an extremely nontrivial undertaking for anyone
on the cygwin mailing list.

cgf

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[jmarshall]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> For the record, my original paragraph read like this:
>
> "It actually is not trivial at all.  As I also keep mentioning, it
> requires that someone who cares about this will have to actually do it
> rather than report that it is possible to do it."
>
> The non-triviality of the effort involves someone actually TAKING TIME
> TO DO THE JOB.  That is an extremely nontrivial undertaking for anyone
> on the cygwin mailing list.

Sorry.  The "also" in the second sentence led me to think that the
non-triviality being referred to was something else.

As I said, I'm taking time to do the job.  Whether you all might want
to integrate it is another question, but it'll give an idea of the
feasibility or otherwise anyway.  Unless someone else out there beats
me to it. :-)

    John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


--
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/

RE: press for cygwin

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [ mailto:cgf@redhat.com ]
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 5:15 PM
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: press for cygwin
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:56:18AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
> >>Why not then just generate files named ".cgw" instead of ".tar.bz2",
> >>and let cygwin setup.exe know that?  Then WinZip will most 
> surely *not*
> >>be able to naturally open these files (neither now or in the future)
> >>and this whole discussion will be closed, as well as any 
> WinZip-related
> >>thread.
> >>
> >>Note that not all packages should use the new suffix; only essential
> >>ones (like cygwin itself) so that the burden on package developers
> >>would not be too bad: after all, once you've installed the 
> basic cygwin
> >>parts using setup.exe, I doubt you will go back to WinZip! :-)
> >
> >Somebody else mentioned this earlier -- and explained that Debian did
> >exactly that.  ".deb" files are just ar archives, but .deb 
> implies that
> >they obey some sort of internal format standard ("CYGWIN-PATCHES" ?
> >/etc/postinstall?  )
> >
> >I actually think this is a pretty good idea.
> 
> It does have merits except for the fact that you lose the ability to
> distinguish between a .gz and .bz2 compressed archive.  setup.exe
> determines the uncompression method from the name.  If it 
> sees .bz2 file
> it says "Bwhaha, this is a WinZip confuser archive.  I will uncompress
> this file with great vigor".  If it sees a .gz file." it thinks "Oh
> well.  I'll uncompress this but I'm not happy about it since 
> the file is
> recognizable to the evil GUI WinZip."
> 
> It's probably possible to add magic number detection to setup.exe to
> circumvent this but then, once again, we're moving into development
> areas that need more than just a good idea for anything to happen.
> 

John's ".cgw.gz"/".cgw.bz2" would solve that, or we can use ".cgw" for
gzipped and ".cg2" for bzip2ed (apologies for the horrendous neologism :-))

Regards,

	Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
		b.dautrevaux@usa.net
-------------------------------------------- 

--
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/

RE: press for cygwin

[Bernard Dautrevaux]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) [ mailto:lhall@rfk.com ]
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 7:30 PM
> To: Mark Bradshaw; 'cygwin@cygwin.com'
> Subject: RE: press for cygwin
> 
> 
> At 10:35 AM 8/31/2001, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> >Hmm...  Should I paint a bulls eye on my chest here.  Eh.  Why not.
> >
> >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. :(
> 
> 
> Just so everyone is clear (in case there still is some 
> ambiguity on this
> subject in this thread), discouraging the use of WinZip is 
> *not* the root
> of some insidious plot.  There's a good reason.  That reason is 
> WinZip doesn't understand facilities and conventions of Cygwin (like
> symbolic links, mounts, etc).  As a result, things installed 
> with WinZip
> are very likely to be broken when done.  While that's the 
> plight of the 
> person adopting the wrong install procedure, it leaves a bad 
> impression
> with the would-be user and probably generates some email to the list.
> We see plenty of this kind of email now.  So the we strongly 
> discourage 
> the use of WinZip as a result.  It is not a robust 
> installation procedure
> for Cygwin and we'd like to avoid people trying to use this 
> approach, for
> their benefit and ours.  Changing to bzip2 format files would do this,
> since the Cygwin installer (setup.exe) can handle bzip2 files just as
> readily as gzip.  Of course, some day WinZip will add bzip2 
> file support
> and we'll be right back to to square one again! ;-)

Why not then just generate files named ".cgw" instead of ".tar.bz2", and let
cygwin setup.exe know that? Then WinZip will most surely *not* be able to
naturally open these files (neither now or in the future) and this whole
discussion will be closed, as well as any WinZip-related thread.

Note that not all packages should use the new suffix; only essential ones
(like cygwin itself) so that the burden on package developers would not be
too bad: after all, once you've installed the basic cygwin parts using
setup.exe, I doubt you will go back to WinZip! :-)

Best regards,

	Bernard


--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
		b.dautrevaux@usa.net
-------------------------------------------- 

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Charles Wilson]

Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:


> Why not then just generate files named ".cgw" instead of ".tar.bz2", and let
> cygwin setup.exe know that? Then WinZip will most surely *not* be able to
> naturally open these files (neither now or in the future) and this whole
> discussion will be closed, as well as any WinZip-related thread.
> 
> Note that not all packages should use the new suffix; only essential ones
> (like cygwin itself) so that the burden on package developers would not be
> too bad: after all, once you've installed the basic cygwin parts using
> setup.exe, I doubt you will go back to WinZip! :-)
>


Somebody else mentioned this earlier -- and explained that Debian did 
exactly that.  ".deb" files are just ar archives, but .deb implies that 
they obey some sort of internal format standard ("CYGWIN-PATCHES" ? 
/etc/postinstall? )

I actually think this is a pretty good idea.

--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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:56:18AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>>Why not then just generate files named ".cgw" instead of ".tar.bz2",
>>and let cygwin setup.exe know that?  Then WinZip will most surely *not*
>>be able to naturally open these files (neither now or in the future)
>>and this whole discussion will be closed, as well as any WinZip-related
>>thread.
>>
>>Note that not all packages should use the new suffix; only essential
>>ones (like cygwin itself) so that the burden on package developers
>>would not be too bad: after all, once you've installed the basic cygwin
>>parts using setup.exe, I doubt you will go back to WinZip! :-)
>
>Somebody else mentioned this earlier -- and explained that Debian did
>exactly that.  ".deb" files are just ar archives, but .deb implies that
>they obey some sort of internal format standard ("CYGWIN-PATCHES" ?
>/etc/postinstall?  )
>
>I actually think this is a pretty good idea.

It does have merits except for the fact that you lose the ability to
distinguish between a .gz and .bz2 compressed archive.  setup.exe
determines the uncompression method from the name.  If it sees .bz2 file
it says "Bwhaha, this is a WinZip confuser archive.  I will uncompress
this file with great vigor".  If it sees a .gz file." it thinks "Oh
well.  I'll uncompress this but I'm not happy about it since the file is
recognizable to the evil GUI WinZip."

It's probably possible to add magic number detection to setup.exe to
circumvent this but then, once again, we're moving into development
areas that need more than just a good idea for anything to happen.

cgf

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Michael Schaap]

At 17:14 3-9-2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:56:18AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
> >>Why not then just generate files named ".cgw" instead of ".tar.bz2",
> >>and let cygwin setup.exe know that?  Then WinZip will most surely *not*
> >>be able to naturally open these files (neither now or in the future)
> >>and this whole discussion will be closed, as well as any WinZip-related
> >>thread.
> >>
> >>Note that not all packages should use the new suffix; only essential
> >>ones (like cygwin itself) so that the burden on package developers
> >>would not be too bad: after all, once you've installed the basic cygwin
> >>parts using setup.exe, I doubt you will go back to WinZip! :-)
> >
> >Somebody else mentioned this earlier -- and explained that Debian did
> >exactly that.  ".deb" files are just ar archives, but .deb implies that
> >they obey some sort of internal format standard ("CYGWIN-PATCHES" ?
> >/etc/postinstall?  )
> >
> >I actually think this is a pretty good idea.
>
>It does have merits except for the fact that you lose the ability to
>distinguish between a .gz and .bz2 compressed archive.  setup.exe
>determines the uncompression method from the name.  If it sees .bz2 file
>it says "Bwhaha, this is a WinZip confuser archive.  I will uncompress
>this file with great vigor".  If it sees a .gz file." it thinks "Oh
>well.  I'll uncompress this but I'm not happy about it since the file is
>recognizable to the evil GUI WinZip."

I can think of two possible solutions:

1.  ".cgw" files should always be bzip2-compressed

2.  Use different extensions, e.g. ".cgb" for bzip2-compressed, and ".cgz" 
for gzip-compressed packages.

I tend to think option 1. is the best, why, after all, would you have to 
support gzip-compressed packages?  Perhaps setup.exe should support 
".tar.gz" and "tar.bz2" files for a little while.

  - Michael

-- 
     I always wondered about the meaning of life.   So I looked it
     up in the dictionary under "L" and there it was - the meaning
     of life.  It was not what I expected.                  - Dogbert 


--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 05:45:25PM +0200, Michael Schaap wrote:
>At 17:14 3-9-2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:56:18AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>>>Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>>>>Why not then just generate files named ".cgw" instead of ".tar.bz2",
>>>>and let cygwin setup.exe know that?  Then WinZip will most surely *not*
>>>>be able to naturally open these files (neither now or in the future)
>>>>and this whole discussion will be closed, as well as any WinZip-related
>>>>thread.
>>>>
>>>>Note that not all packages should use the new suffix; only essential
>>>>ones (like cygwin itself) so that the burden on package developers
>>>>would not be too bad: after all, once you've installed the basic cygwin
>>>>parts using setup.exe, I doubt you will go back to WinZip! :-)
>>>
>>>Somebody else mentioned this earlier -- and explained that Debian did
>>>exactly that.  ".deb" files are just ar archives, but .deb implies that
>>>they obey some sort of internal format standard ("CYGWIN-PATCHES" ?
>>>/etc/postinstall?  )
>>>
>>>I actually think this is a pretty good idea.
>>
>>It does have merits except for the fact that you lose the ability to
>>distinguish between a .gz and .bz2 compressed archive.  setup.exe
>>determines the uncompression method from the name.  If it sees .bz2 file
>>it says "Bwhaha, this is a WinZip confuser archive.  I will uncompress
>>this file with great vigor".  If it sees a .gz file." it thinks "Oh
>>well.  I'll uncompress this but I'm not happy about it since the file is
>>recognizable to the evil GUI WinZip."
>
>I can think of two possible solutions:
>
>1.  ".cgw" files should always be bzip2-compressed
>
>2.  Use different extensions, e.g. ".cgb" for bzip2-compressed, and ".cgz" 
>for gzip-compressed packages.

The only "solution" is for someone to provide a patch.

I mentioned the magic number method.  That would actually work.  That is
why I suggested it.

If we are going to use analogies with other packages, then it should be
obvious that neither rpm nor debian modifies their package name based on
the internal compression format.

cgf

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Andrew Markebo]

| I mentioned the magic number method.  That would actually work.  That is
| why I suggested it.

Just a thought, doesn't gzip and bzip2 have 'magic numbers' already?
The first two bytes in the files is "BZ" or "GZ"? Hmm checked a
bzip2-file, it has BZ in the beginning, couldn't see similar in
gzip.. ahh well.. 

        /Andy

-- 
 The eye of the beholder rests on the beauty!

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 06:30:19PM +0200, Andrew Markebo wrote:
>
>| I mentioned the magic number method.  That would actually work.  That is
>| why I suggested it.
>
>Just a thought, doesn't gzip and bzip2 have 'magic numbers' already?
>The first two bytes in the files is "BZ" or "GZ"? Hmm checked a
>bzip2-file, it has BZ in the beginning, couldn't see similar in
>gzip.. ahh well.. 

There is a program on UNIX called "file".  It is able to detect the
difference between bzip2 and gzip files just fine.

I am not advocating that we add our own magic numbers.  I do still want
to enable people who KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING to be able to uncompress
the files without resorting to setup.exe.  I am talking about using
an existing mechanism to detect the files.

cgf

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Robert Collins]

On 03 Sep 2001 11:14:42 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I think we should name the files .cgf. It just seems right.
>
> It's probably possible to add magic number detection to setup.exe to
> circumvent this but then, once again, we're moving into development
> areas that need more than just a good idea for anything to happen.

I got the impression that this thread started with the goal of confusing
Winzip, but not native cygwin utilities. Whilst I like the .deb/.rpm
layered approach, that _will_ confuse native utilities, or we will have
to field question s about "How do I manually install <obfuscated archive
name> without setup.exe?"

IMO we have a community awareness that Winzip is evil - for past and
current readers of this list - and that changing the question by
renaming the files will result in more questions that no-one but a
developer thinks to answer. Which is not what we want!

Even if the files where to be packaged as a well-known format - say .rpm
- there would still be questions, but at least then we would have the
option of pointing the user at a generic rpm list.

Rob


--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:24:18AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>On 03 Sep 2001 11:14:42 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I think we should name the files .cgf. It just seems right.
>>
>> It's probably possible to add magic number detection to setup.exe to
>> circumvent this but then, once again, we're moving into development
>> areas that need more than just a good idea for anything to happen.
>
>I got the impression that this thread started with the goal of confusing
>Winzip, but not native cygwin utilities. Whilst I like the .deb/.rpm
>layered approach, that _will_ confuse native utilities, or we will have
>to field question s about "How do I manually install <obfuscated archive
>name> without setup.exe?"

Originally, I was idly wondering if the fact that we were using .bz2
files would be enough to act as a full stop for people who read an
article where they were instructed to use WinZip.

I thought it was better to have something not work entirely than sorta
seem to work but...  In the former case, at least people who care will
start asking questions early.

My idle question as followed by moral outrage over the fact that I hated
WinZip and all that it stood for.

Now, the thread has merged with the "If you add -cygwin to-cygwin
all-cygwin your-cygwin packages-cygwin, everything.cyg, will.cyg,
be.cgz, great.cgb" thread.

I agree that by changing the file names to something besides .tar.gz or
.tar.bzw we are actually obfuscating the meaning for people who might be
able to scratch out a clue about what these files might be.

>IMO we have a community awareness that Winzip is evil - for past and
>current readers of this list - and that changing the question by
>renaming the files will result in more questions that no-one but a
>developer thinks to answer. Which is not what we want!

Now, there you go.  I knew that all of us core developers despised WinZip.
Pthth!  I spit on WinZip.

"My name is Inigo Montoya, you are the program that ruined my cygwin
distribution.  Prepare to die!"

>Even if the files where to be packaged as a well-known format - say .rpm
>- there would still be questions, but at least then we would have the
>option of pointing the user at a generic rpm list.

Now, Robert.  I'm sure that a few well placed explanations on the cygwin
mailing list will suffice.  Maybe a yearly posting, too.  Surely, that
is all that would be required.

cgf

(Hmm.  I guess I'd better go delete WinZip from my system now...)

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Charles Wilson]

Christopher Faylor wrote:


> "My name is Inigo Montoya, you are the program that ruined my cygwin
> distribution.  Prepare to die!"


HA!  I *love* that movie -- and the book is abso-stinkin' hilarious!

On the actual topic, I've changed my mind.  I thought that using a 
unique extension to indicate that *our* .tar.bz2 file (.cyg) followed 
some special internal format (/etc/postinstall, <top>/CYGWIN-PATCHES/, 
etc) would be a good idea.

Then i realized that I've been using setup.exe (with a custom setup.ini) 
to install custom tarballs -- that don't follow that special format -- 
into my cygwin for months now.

Nope, keep it .tar.bz2, if you don't mind. :-)

--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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Robert Collins]

On 03 Sep 2001 21:23:47 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Originally, I was idly wondering if the fact that we were using .bz2
> files would be enough to act as a full stop for people who read an
> article where they were instructed to use WinZip.

I think it is - AFAIK Winzip has no plans for bz2 support :]. We just
have to find and destroy all tar.gz files.
 
> "My name is Inigo Montoya, you are the program that ruined my cygwin
> distribution.  Prepare to die!"

Exit, Count Rugen Winzip, at a run, stage left.

> Now, Robert.  I'm sure that a few well placed explanations on the cygwin
> mailing list will suffice.  Maybe a yearly posting, too.  Surely, that
> is all that would be required.

heeeehehehahahahahhahhehhehe (hysterical laugheter).

Rob


--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Warren Young]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> >Somebody else mentioned this earlier -- and explained that Debian did
> >exactly that.  ".deb" files are just ar archives, but .deb implies that
> >they obey some sort of internal format standard ("CYGWIN-PATCHES" ?
> >/etc/postinstall?  )
> >
> >I actually think this is a pretty good idea.
> 
> It does have merits except for the fact that you lose the ability to
> distinguish between a .gz and .bz2 compressed archive.  

A quick peek at /etc/magic tells me that it's simple to distinguish the
two, and in fact it's more reliable, since magic numbers don't lie, but
file names can.  Also, we might say from the outset that Cygwin packages
are all packed with bzip2, not gzip.

I realize the file name detection code exists, so it's easier to leave
it be than to add more code for magic number checking, but it _is_
trivial to add magic number checking.  For gzip, a matter of checking
the first 2 bytes of the file, and for bzip2, the first 3 bytes.

> it says "Bwhaha, this is a WinZip confuser archive.  I will uncompress
> this file with great vigor".  If it sees a .gz file." it thinks "Oh
> well.  I'll uncompress this but I'm not happy about it since the file is
> recognizable to the evil GUI WinZip."

:)

I think it's more likely that WinZip will add bzip2 decompression than a
rule to handle *.cgw files as .tar.gz.  In other words, bzip2 confusing
Winzip might be a short-lived state of affairs.  If you doubt that, ask
yourself if, a few years ago, if you would have guessed that WinZip
would have added tar and gzip code?

> It's probably possible to add magic number detection to setup.exe to
> circumvent this but then, once again, we're moving into development
> areas that need more than just a good idea for anything to happen.

It _does_ solve two recent issues...
-- 
= Warren -- Video articles: http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/video/
= 
= ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 10:52:21AM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> 
>> >Somebody else mentioned this earlier -- and explained that Debian did
>> >exactly that.  ".deb" files are just ar archives, but .deb implies that
>> >they obey some sort of internal format standard ("CYGWIN-PATCHES" ?
>> >/etc/postinstall?  )
>> >
>> >I actually think this is a pretty good idea.
>> 
>> It does have merits except for the fact that you lose the ability to
>> distinguish between a .gz and .bz2 compressed archive.  
>
>A quick peek at /etc/magic tells me that it's simple to distinguish the
>two, and in fact it's more reliable, since magic numbers don't lie, but
>file names can.  Also, we might say from the outset that Cygwin packages
>are all packed with bzip2, not gzip.

Yes.  As I keep saying (but somehow it seems to consistently be lost in
the translation), I already knew that you could detect the difference
when I sent my original suggestion of using magic numbers.

>I realize the file name detection code exists, so it's easier to leave
>it be than to add more code for magic number checking, but it _is_
>trivial to add magic number checking.  For gzip, a matter of checking
>the first 2 bytes of the file, and for bzip2, the first 3 bytes.

It actually is not trivial at all.  As I also keep mentioning, it
requires that someone who cares about this will have to actually do it
rather than report that it is possible to do it.

>I think it's more likely that WinZip will add bzip2 decompression than a
>rule to handle *.cgw files as .tar.gz.  In other words, bzip2 confusing
>Winzip might be a short-lived state of affairs.  If you doubt that, ask
>yourself if, a few years ago, if you would have guessed that WinZip
>would have added tar and gzip code?

I somehow doubt that WinZip would be incapable of uncompressing files
merely becase they have a "non-standard" extension.

This may solve the "Ah.  It has a .tar.gz extension so I can use WinZip"
problem, but it does not solve the "Ah.  This is some kind of archive,
I wonder if WinZip understands it" problem.  Continuing to move towards
.bz2 compression works around the problem temporarily but neither that
nor naming the archives something different are a long term foolproof
solution.

cgf

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Warren Young]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> It actually is not trivial at all.  As I also keep mentioning, it
> requires that someone who cares about this will have to actually do it
> rather than report that it is possible to do it.

Done.  See cygwin-patches.

Sorry, John, if I upstaged you.  I don't mind if you complete your patch
and we'll see which works better, or maybe merge our two patches.  The
challenge in the quoted message demanded an answer.
-- 
= Warren -- ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Warren Young]

Warren Young wrote:
> 
> Done.  See cygwin-patches.

Well, junk.  `pears that cygwin-patches is by invitation only.  So the
patches are inlined below.



This patch adds "*.cwp" ("CygWin Package") file name recognition to
setup.exe.  .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 recognition appears to still work. 
Also, .cwp files can be either bzip2 or gzip files, as the program now
does magic number checking.  This also applies to .tar.gz and .tar.bz2
-- if the file is named .tar.gz and is not actually a gzip file, or
whatever, the program will refuse to even try to open it.

The choose.cc patch is below, and the tar.cc patch follows in the next
message.


Change log entry:

2001-09-05  Warren Young  <warren@etr-usa.com>
        * choose.cc (find_tar_ext): Add *.cgw extension recognition

        * tar.cc (tar_open): Now calls decomp_factory() to create gzbz
        instance by examining the file name given.

        * tar.cc (decomp_factory): new function
          

--- cinstall/choose.cc   Wed Sep  5 18:38:57 2001
+++ cinstall/choose.cc.new       Wed Sep  5 18:36:06 2001
@@ -1208,6 +1208,29 @@ base (const char *s)
 int
 find_tar_ext (const char *path)
 {
+#if 1
+  char temp_path[_MAX_PATH];
+  strncpy(temp_path, path, sizeof(temp_path));
+  temp_path[sizeof(temp_path) - 1] = '\0';
+
+  char* p = strrchr(temp_path, '.');
+  if (!p)
+    return 0;
+
+  if (strcmp(p, ".cwp") == 0)
+    return p - temp_path;
+  else if ((strcmp(p, ".gz") == 0) || (strcmp(p, ".bz2") == 0))
+    {
+      // found .gz or .bz2, make sure ".tar" is before that.
+      *p = '\0';
+      p = strrchr(temp_path, '.');
+      if (p && (strcmp(p, ".tar") == 0))
+        return p - temp_path;
+      return 0;
+    }
+  else
+    return 0;
+#else
   char *p = strchr (path, '\0') - 7;
   if (p <= path)
     return 0;
@@ -1220,6 +1243,7 @@ find_tar_ext (const char *path)
     return 0;

   return p - path;
+#endif
 }

 /* Parse a filename into package, version, and extension components. */







--- cinstall/tar.cc      Wed Sep  5 18:38:58 2001
+++ cinstall/tar.cc.new  Wed Sep  5 17:58:36 2001
@@ -151,6 +151,40 @@ xstrdup (char *c)
   return r;
 }

+static gzbz*
+decomp_factory(const char* pathname)
+{
+#if 1
+  HANDLE h = CreateFile(pathname, GENERIC_READ, 0, 0, OPEN_EXISTING,
+                  FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL, 0);
+  char ac[3];
+  DWORD n = sizeof(ac);
+
+  if (!h)
+    return 0;
+
+  if (!ReadFile(h, ac, sizeof(ac), &n, 0))
+    {
+         CloseHandle(h);
+      return 0;
+       }
+  CloseHandle(h);
+
+  if (memcmp(ac, "\037\213", 2) == 0)
+    return new gz (pathname);
+  else if (memcmp(ac, "BZh", 3) == 0)
+    return new bz (pathname);
+  else
+    return 0;
+#else
+       if (strstr(pathname, "bz2"))
+               return new bz(pathname);
+       else
+               return new gz(pathname);
+#endif
+}
+
+
 int
 tar_open (const char *pathname)
 {
@@ -163,10 +197,14 @@ tar_open (const char *pathname)
     return 1;
   _tar_file_size = size;

-  if (strstr (pathname, ".bz2"))
-    z = new bz (pathname);
-  else
-    z = new gz (pathname);
+  z = decomp_factory(pathname);
+  if (!z)
+    {
+         fprintf (stderr, "error: could not figure out compression type
"
+                       "for file '%s'\n", pathname);
+         return 1;
+       }
+
   if (sizeof (tar_header) != 512)
     {
       /* drastic, but important */





-- 
= Warren -- ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 01:26:59PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>Warren Young wrote:
>> 
>> Done.  See cygwin-patches.
>
>Well, junk.  `pears that cygwin-patches is by invitation only.  So the
>patches are inlined below.

You should have received this bounce message:

<cygwin-patches@cygwin.com>:
Sorry, only subscribers may post. If you are a subscriber, please forward this message to
+cygwin-patches-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com to get your new address included (#5.7.2)

So, if you want to post, just subscribe.

cgf

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Warren Young]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> You should have received this bounce message:

Yes.  Then I went to the Mailing Lists page to subscribe, where I saw
that the list was described as "invitation only", so I sent the patch
here.  I see that the mailing lists page was changed in the last day or
so, though, to remove that restriction.

So, I am now in the process of getting subscribed and I'll repost there.

-- 
= Warren -- ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 03:22:34PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>You should have received this bounce message:
>
>Yes.  Then I went to the Mailing Lists page to subscribe, where I saw
>that the list was described as "invitation only", so I sent the patch
>here.  I see that the mailing lists page was changed in the last day or
>so, though, to remove that restriction.

I just changed it.  However it didn't say "by invitation only", it said
"by approval only".  I realized that must have been what was concerning
you so I removed the words.

I was filtering subscription requests to this mailing list for a while
but it looked like the only people who subscribe now are ones who are
actually interested in submitting patches.  So, I just let everything
through.

I wish I could say the same for cygwin-developers.  For some reason
people seem to want to insist that cygwin-developers is a bug-reporting
maiilng list.  And, then to argue with me when I inform them that that
is not its purpose.

cgf

--
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/

RE: press for cygwin

[Mark Bradshaw]

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

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. :(

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

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.

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.

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.  

Mark

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Charles Wilson]

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/

RE: press for cygwin

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

At 10:35 AM 8/31/2001, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
>Hmm...  Should I paint a bulls eye on my chest here.  Eh.  Why not.
>
>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. :(


Just so everyone is clear (in case there still is some ambiguity on this
subject in this thread), discouraging the use of WinZip is *not* the root
of some insidious plot.  There's a good reason.  That reason is 
WinZip doesn't understand facilities and conventions of Cygwin (like
symbolic links, mounts, etc).  As a result, things installed with WinZip
are very likely to be broken when done.  While that's the plight of the 
person adopting the wrong install procedure, it leaves a bad impression
with the would-be user and probably generates some email to the list.
We see plenty of this kind of email now.  So the we strongly discourage 
the use of WinZip as a result.  It is not a robust installation procedure
for Cygwin and we'd like to avoid people trying to use this approach, for
their benefit and ours.  Changing to bzip2 format files would do this,
since the Cygwin installer (setup.exe) can handle bzip2 files just as
readily as gzip.  Of course, some day WinZip will add bzip2 file support
and we'll be right back to to square one again! ;-)


>2)  Goes the same for the references to old versions, etc.  The article's
>almost a year old now, believe it or not.
>
>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 issue of performing a full Cygwin installation is one that this list
understands well and is something that's being addressed.  The strong
recommendation to install *all* packages comes from the fact that there
are implicit interdependencies among packages.  Folks who try to 
pick-and-choose the packages they want without an understanding of the 
underlying dependencies often end up with strange problems, resulting in 
an avalanche of email queries.  While many of us on this list are quite 
proud of Cygwin and wish to promote its use, the main reason at this point 
for pushing for full installs is, again, pretty pragmatic.  We want folks 
to be able to install stuff and get it going very easily.  Without explicit 
dependency information, this can't be guaranteed to your average net user 
unless they install everything (since then all the dependencies will be 
resolved by default).  Rest assured there's been allot of talk on this 
list about a solution for the dependency problem and quite a bit of work 
on a new version of setup.exe which will handle them transparently.  Once 
this is in place, I think most folks on the list will feel comfortable 
with the average user downloading only the packages they want.  In the 
meantime I, for one, have no problem with folks downloading only what they 
need so long as they know what they need (i.e. they understand the implicit
dependencies).  If they don't, I feel it's up to them to pull down 
everything and retry their problem before consulting the list.  I believe 
it's fair to allow people to use these tools the way they want to but I 
also believe it's not too much to ask that they recognize that the list 
can't be expected to debug their home-grown installations.  All this 
should be much less of an issue with the upcoming setup.exe that understands the package dependencies.



>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.
>
>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.  


I suppose I should add an apology to you, since I was the one that
posted the reference to your article and thus touched off this thread.
While I think the discussion that resulted unearthed some fair criticism,
I came away from it with the distinct impression that you were promoting 
OpenSSH specifically and Cygwin secondarily as good tools.  At least in 
that respect, I was pleased to see these referenced in the Windows 2000 
Magazine forum.  My intent was to share this with the Cygwin community as 
a form of recognition for the hard work.  I hope no one was too offended 
on either side by the resulting discussion.

Regards,



Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
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/

RE: press for cygwin

[Robert Collins]

On 31 Aug 2001 10:35:45 -0400, Mark Bradshaw wrote:
> Hmm...  Should I paint a bulls eye on my chest here.  Eh.  Why not.

Hmmm... do you gamble ? ;}
 
> 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.

I'm only addressing this point, because I believe that the already
posted responses from Chuck and Larry didn't quite emphasis enough. You
are in the position of writing a HOW-TO for installers of sshd for
cygwin...  chucks url reference (which had a typo:
http://tech.erdelynet.com/cygwin-sshd.asp is the correct address) covers
a somewhat larger install than you needed.

This page http://tech.erdelynet.com/cygwin-sshdmin.asp covers using the
cygwin setup.exe to install the core files - you could easily remove
ash,bash, fileutils, gawk, grep, sh-utils and txtutils from the list.
This would give you a *standard install* that happened to have only the
core utilities. The precious cygwin mount points and symlinks needed for
correct operation - say when these budding NT Admins learn about grep or
awk and try to install it - when any larger packages are added in. Also
note that setup.exe from cygwin.com extracts the .tar.gz files - no
experience with tar is needed.

As a parallel - hopefully I won't rub salt into the wounds :] - the
winzip approach is roughly equivalent to taking a MS Office install CD,
extracting winword.exe and a few select .dll's by hand, and then
manually adding a couple of registry keys. Sure - once someone documents
how to do it, anyone can follow, but *none* of the followers can ever
install the full office without a traumatic repair period.

If you are in a position to create errata for that article, I encourage
you to do so... you will be saving your target audience from a lot of
grief - down the track. 

Rob


--
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/

RE: Press for Cygwin

[Peter Ring]

While the article may be a bit misguided, there was a neat trick that I
didn't know about: how to get a shell running under the LocalSystem account.

"... needs to run under the security context of LocalSystem to function
properly. The easiest way to start a shell is to go to the server's command
line and type one of the following commands. If you have Task Scheduler,
type

  net start "task scheduler"

Otherwise, type

  net start schedule

Then, regardless of which scheduler you have, type

  at <current time + 1 minute> /interactive C:\winnt\system32\cmd.exe

When the specified time comes, the scheduler will launch a command shell
that LocalSystem owns. You can then use this shell ..."

Kind regards,
Peter Ring

--
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/

press for cygwin

[Peter Buckley]

I emailed the author-

I read your cygwin/OpenSSH article at win2kmag.com-

I didn't care for it. You are proposing an unsupported method 
to install the cygwin toolset- even without this press for cygwin, 
the cygwin mailing list gets an email a week about "I installed 
with winzip, and something doesn't work." Many of the developers 
are tired of answering people who don't follow basic directions 
that are there for good reasons- winzip can't handle necessary 
things like symlinks- and sometimes they are a little curt with 
people who have cygwin problems and have shot themselves in 
the foot by performing a half-baked install. 

You might want to check the archives of the cygwin mailing 
list to see the numerous messages about broken installs due 
to not following directions. 

Also- you don't mention setting the CYGWIN variable to "ntsec", 
which I believe is required based on the openssh-2.9p2.readme 
(for sshd to work or be secure). 

You are setting a lot of people up for frustration and failure by 
recommending an incomplete/unsupported installation of these tools-
when installed correctly, the cygwin toolset is fantastic. 

Maybe you should read and point people to http://tech.erdelynet.com .
It has an excellent cygwin and ssh setup section, and ssh mailing list.
Of course, YOU probably won't get all the pleas for help from people 
following your directions- the cygwin list/developers will.

I think you should more carefully consider the implications of your article
before you 
let someone publish it. "Does a man build a tower without first considering 
whether he has the time and materials to build it?" I forget what verse that
is. 

Even though I disagree with you on the article, 
I want to thank you for helping out with crosswalk.com.

-Peter

--
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/

Re: press for cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 05:33:11PM -0400, Peter Buckley wrote:
>I emailed the author-
>
>I read your cygwin/OpenSSH article at win2kmag.com-

Thank you!

cgf

--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[yap_noel]

>Basically, SSHing into a Windows box without a full Cygwin install
>is a pretty empty experience.

I agree, but I thought it was pretty neat that I can bring up an xterm on
my Sun box and have it display a DOS shell :-)

Noel



This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.


--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Eric M. Monsler]

yap_noel@jpmorgan.com wrote:
>
> I agree, but I thought it was pretty neat that I can bring up an xterm on
> my Sun box and have it display a DOS shell :-)

Sick.  Wrong.  Keep away from children.

--
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/

RE: Press for Cygwin

[Robinow, David]

 from http://www.arthappens.com/dictionary.htm

arg!, argh! - An expression of frustration.

Later, from cgf 
> So, it's more than just WinZip.  Bleah.
 Clearly, Chris has spelling problems.

blee - An interjection indicating something disgusting, bad, or 
icky.

bleh, bleugh - An interjection indicating something yucky or bad. 
(Less intense than "blee!")


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Schaap [ mailto:cygwin@mscha.com ]
> To: cygwin@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: Press for Cygwin
> At 22:49 30-8-2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >>Nice article except ARGH! they mention using WinZip to 
> unpack the archives.
> > >
> > >You sure?
> > >I think you might feel differently when the support 
> requests come in to
> > >this mailing list from people who created an extremely 
> non-standard hacked
> > >Cygwin installation...  ;-(
> >
> >Which, coincidentially, was kinda my point.  Or does ARGH! 
> mean something 
> >different
> >where you come from?
> 
> Well, ARGH is not in the Dutch dictionary.  But then again, 
> it isn't in the 
> English dictionary either.  :-)
> 
> I misunderstood your ARGH - I assumed it was just directed 
> towards the use 
> of WinZip, which as we know can't deal with symlinks and 
> such.  In fact, 
> just about everything they say in the article deserves an 
> ARGH(*), I would 
> certainly not want to call it a "Nice article".  :-)

--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Charles Wilson]

Robinow, David wrote:


>>So, it's more than just WinZip.  Bleah.
>>
>  Clearly, Chris has spelling problems.
> 
> blee - An interjection indicating something disgusting, bad, or 
> icky.
> 
> bleh, bleugh - An interjection indicating something yucky or bad. 
> (Less intense than "blee!")


Ah, but they neglect to mention the variant first popularized by 
Berkeley Breathed in his "Bloom County" comic strip (ca. 1983--1989): 
The use of "Bleah" and "Blech" with similar meanings.  See also 
"Pbbbbttt" with similar meaning(*), but usually accompanied by a 
physical gesture (sticking out one's tongue at the "yucky" person or 
object).

--Chuck

(*) "Pbbbbttt" is also used as an expression of glee, esp. in reaction 
to the discovery of proof that the person was right about a contentious 
issue, and directing this expression toward the opposing, incorrect party.



--
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/

RE: Press for Cygwin

[Robinow, David]

> From: Jonathon Merz [ mailto:jmerz42@earthlink.net ]
> Subject: Re: Press for Cygwin
> <soapbox>
> Just some comments:  I do fully support the use of bzip2 over 
> gzip because it compresses better, but I think using it purely
> to thwart WinZip users would be a bad reason to do so.  ...
 You misunderstand.  Bias against the WIMP interface has nothing to do with
this.
> Likewise, while we all appreciate the efficiency of 
> command-line tools, trying to thwart users of WinZip is kind 
> of elitist, and for those who have gotten to be called "System 
> Administrators" without learning much in the way of command
> line tools, our efforts would be better 
> spent teaching them to patch their IIS servers before we try 
> to teach them to use the command line :)
> </soapbox>
 Nobody (but you) said anything about a command line.
 The supported installation method is with setup.exe.
 The (A) proper way to run it is to double-click on it.

--
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/

Press for Cygwin

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

Hi all,

For those of you interested, there is a good article that promotes 
Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH port.
Check it out:

    http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992

Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:58:48PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>For those of you interested, there is a good article that promotes 
>Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH port.
>Check it out:
>
>    http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992

Nice article except ARGH! they mention using WinZip to unpack the archives.

Does anyone know how we can adapt the archives so that they are not WinZip
readable?  Would just converting everything to .bz2 do that?

cgf

--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

At 04:06 PM 8/30/2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:58:48PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >For those of you interested, there is a good article that promotes 
> >Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH port.
> >Check it out:
> >
> >    http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992
>
>Nice article except ARGH! they mention using WinZip to unpack the archives.


Yes, I was a little perturbed by that too! 


>Does anyone know how we can adapt the archives so that they are not WinZip
>readable?  Would just converting everything to .bz2 do that?



Seems like it.  WinZip 8.0 won't read a cron-3.0.1-4.tar.bz2 file I have.



Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 04:13:54PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>At 04:06 PM 8/30/2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:58:48PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>>>For those of you interested, there is a good article that promotes
>>>Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH port.
>>>Check it out:
>>>
>>> http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992
>>
>>Nice article except ARGH! they mention using WinZip to unpack the
>>archives.
>
>Yes, I was a little perturbed by that too!
>
>>Does anyone know how we can adapt the archives so that they are not
>>WinZip readable?  Would just converting everything to .bz2 do that?
>
>Seems like it.  WinZip 8.0 won't read a cron-3.0.1-4.tar.bz2 file I
>have.

Hmm.  As it turns out, he is recommending that they download an *old*
version of openssh.  The newer tar files are .bz2 files.

I've just deleted the older openssh .tar.gz file.

cgf

--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Jonathon Merz]

> 
> 
>>Does anyone know how we can adapt the archives so that they are not WinZip
>>readable?  Would just converting everything to .bz2 do that?
>>
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like it.  WinZip 8.0 won't read a cron-3.0.1-4.tar.bz2 file I have.
> 
<soapbox>
Just some comments:  I do fully support the use of bzip2 over gzip because it 
compresses better, but I think using it purely to thwart WinZip users would be 
a bad reason to do so.  Deliberate limitations compatibility for the sake of 
limiting compatibility is something that many people dislike about Microsoft, 
and I don't see that it improves anything, ever.  On the other hand, if there 
is a legitimate reason to do something, and limiting compatibility is a side 
effect, then so be it.  Likewise, while we all appreciate the efficiency of 
command-line tools, trying to thwart users of WinZip is kind of elitist, and 
for those who have gotten to be called "System Administrators" without 
learning much in the way of command line tools, our efforts would be better 
spent teaching them to patch their IIS servers before we try to teach them to 
use the command line :)
</soapbox>


--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Charles Wilson]

Jonathon Merz wrote:

>>
>>
>>> Does anyone know how we can adapt the archives so that they are not 
>>> WinZip
>>> readable?  Would just converting everything to .bz2 do that?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems like it.  WinZip 8.0 won't read a cron-3.0.1-4.tar.bz2 file I have.
>>
> <soapbox>


</me chops your soapbox up for firewood>


> Just some comments:  I do fully support the use of bzip2 over gzip 
> because it compresses better, but I think using it purely to thwart 
> WinZip users would be a bad reason to do so.  


Really?  when (a) using WinZip results in a BROKEN installation, (b) 
users who say "I installed cygwin using WinZip" on this mailing list are 
immediately told -- "reinstall using setup.exe" (because winzip-created 
  cygwin "installations" are irretrievably BROKEN), and (c) because it's 
technically POSSIBLE right now to "install" cygwin using WinZip, we get 
newbies who ignore the HUGE @#$(& link on the cygwin webpage for the 
setup program and use WinZip to "install" at least once a week --

You think we're out of line for trying to make it hard for *new users* 
to shoot themselves in the foot?

> Deliberate limitations 
> compatibility for the sake of limiting compatibility is something that 
> many people dislike about Microsoft, and I don't see that it improves 
> anything, ever. 


But WinZip is ALREADY "incompatible" -- while you can "unzip" the 
.tar.gz files and get something that LOOKS like a cygwin installation -- 
it isn't.  Isn't an obvious, upfront refusal to allow this better than 
enabling users to "install" a broken system by using the WRONG tool?

> On the other hand, if there is a legitimate reason to 
> do something, and limiting compatibility is a side effect, then so be 
> it. 


DING DING DING! We have a winner!

> Likewise, while we all appreciate the efficiency of command-line 
> tools, trying to thwart users of WinZip is kind of elitist, and for 
> those who have gotten to be called "System Administrators" without 
> learning much in the way of command line tools, our efforts would be 
> better spent teaching them to patch their IIS servers before we try to 
> teach them to use the command line :)


Irrelevant.  Setup.exe is already a GUI tool -- despite continual 
requests by "elitists" to add commandline/batch capability.  These 
"elitists" are not 31337 enough to do add/contribute the necessary 
capabilities themselves, so it hasn't been done.  So much for "elitism".

--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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Rick Rankin]

I believe it would. Not even the latest beta of WinZip seems to recognize .bz2
files.

Rick
--
Rick Rankin
rick_rankin@yahoo.com
--- Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:58:48PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >For those of you interested, there is a good article that promotes 
> >Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH port.
> >Check it out:
> >
> >    http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992
> 
> Nice article except ARGH! they mention using WinZip to unpack the archives.
> 
> Does anyone know how we can adapt the archives so that they are not WinZip
> readable?  Would just converting everything to .bz2 do that?
> 
> cgf
> 
> --
> 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/
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com

--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Gerrit P. Haase]

Christopher Faylor schrieb am 2001-08-30, 16:06:

>On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:58:48PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)
>wrote: >Hi all, > >For those of you interested, there is a good article that
>promotes >Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH
>port. >Check it out: > >   
> http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992
>
>Nice article except ARGH! they mention using WinZip to unpack the archives.
>
>Does anyone know how we can adapt the archives so that they are not WinZip
>readable?  Would just converting everything to .bz2 do that?

Yes.

Gerrit


-- 
=^..^=

--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Michael Schaap]

At 22:06 30-8-2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:58:48PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) 
>wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >For those of you interested, there is a good article that promotes
> >Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH port.
> >Check it out:
> >
> >    http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992
>
>Nice article except ARGH! they mention using WinZip to unpack the archives.

You sure?
I think you might feel differently when the support requests come in to 
this mailing list from people who created an extremely non-standard hacked 
Cygwin installation...  ;-(

  - Michael

-- 
     I always wondered about the meaning of life.   So I looked it
     up in the dictionary under "L" and there it was - the meaning
     of life.  It was not what I expected.                  - Dogbert 


--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:42:30PM +0200, Michael Schaap wrote:
>At 22:06 30-8-2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:58:48PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) 
>>wrote:
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>For those of you interested, there is a good article that promotes
>>>Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH port.
>>>Check it out:
>>>
>>>    http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992
>>
>>Nice article except ARGH! they mention using WinZip to unpack the archives.
>
>You sure?
>I think you might feel differently when the support requests come in to 
>this mailing list from people who created an extremely non-standard hacked 
>Cygwin installation...  ;-(

Which, coincidentially, was kinda my point.  Or does ARGH! mean something different
where you come from?

cgf

--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Michael Schaap]

At 22:49 30-8-2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>Nice article except ARGH! they mention using WinZip to unpack the archives.
> >
> >You sure?
> >I think you might feel differently when the support requests come in to
> >this mailing list from people who created an extremely non-standard hacked
> >Cygwin installation...  ;-(
>
>Which, coincidentially, was kinda my point.  Or does ARGH! mean something 
>different
>where you come from?

Well, ARGH is not in the Dutch dictionary.  But then again, it isn't in the 
English dictionary either.  :-)

I misunderstood your ARGH - I assumed it was just directed towards the use 
of WinZip, which as we know can't deal with symlinks and such.  In fact, 
just about everything they say in the article deserves an ARGH(*), I would 
certainly not want to call it a "Nice article".  :-)

(I don't even think those instructions will give you a working sshd server 
- I believe ntsec is mandatory in $CYGWIN, right?  Also, I can't imagine 
"ps &-ef" and "kill &-HUP <PID>" doing something useful...)

(*) Apart from phrases like "Cygwin is an excellent toolkit for any 
administrator with UNIX experience who is moving into the Windows world.", 
of course.  :-)

-- 
     I always wondered about the meaning of life.   So I looked it
     up in the dictionary under "L" and there it was - the meaning
     of life.  It was not what I expected.                  - Dogbert 


--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 04:06:36PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:58:48PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>
>>For those of you interested, there is a good article that promotes
>>Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH port.
>>Check it out:
>>
>> http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992
>
>Nice article except ARGH! they mention using WinZip to unpack the
>archives.

I withdraw the "nice article" part.  It does mention our version of
openssh in a positive light but it has a lot of inaccuracies that could
end us bothering us here.  For instance, my browser has examples that
look like this:

C:\ssh\sshd.exe &--d &--f
  C:\ssh\sshd_config

So, it's more than just WinZip.  Bleah.

cgf

--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[John Marshall]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 04:06:36PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Does anyone know how we can adapt the archives so that they are not WinZip
> readable?  Would just converting everything to .bz2 do that?

Amusingly enough, making the archive names self-identifying as
packages-for-use-with-Cygwin's-setup would solve this problem too.

For example (and this idea is the "better suggestion" I alluded to in
my previous email) if we substituted e.g. "cygwinpkg" for "tar" so that
a bunch of archives were called

	bash-2.05-6.cygwinpkg.gz
	bash-2.05-6-src.cygwinpkg.gz
	fileutils-4.1-1.cygwinpkg.bz2

then WinZip would ungzip the .gz ones but not realise there was a
tarball inside (because it looks for files ending in ".tar").

This is a little bit similar to Debian .deb packages.  If you use the
file command on a .deb package, it will tell you that it's just an ar
archive.  And ar and other tools do indeed work on .deb files.  But
they're ar archives with particular contents, for use with dpkg (or
whatever the tool is called), so the name tells you that.  Separation
of implementation and interface, and all that.

So even though tar still works on bash-2.05-6.cygwinpkg.gz and friends,
the name stops WinZip from seeing inside them, and emphasises that
they're special archives that work with setup.exe.

It seems to me that that's an understandable change to filename parsing.
But I'm still churning through the cygwin-developer mail archives in the
hope that I might be able to make intelligent comments one day. :-)

    John

--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Gerrit P. Haase]

Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc schrieb am 2001-08-30, 15:58:

>Hi all,
>
>For those of you interested, there is a good article that promotes 
>Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH port.
>Check it out:
>
>    http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992

I just read it. It lasts longer to read this article than installing a 
complete cygwin distribution including setting up sshd.

Gerrit

-- 
=^..^=

--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Michael F. March]

> Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc schrieb am 2001-08-30, 15:58:
> 
> >Hi all,
> >
> >For those of you interested, there is a good article that promotes 
> >Cygwin, at least in the context of its support of the OpenSSH port.
> >Check it out:
> >
> >    http://www.win2000mag.com/articles/index.cfm?articleid=21992
> 
> I just read it. It lasts longer to read this article than installing a 
> complete cygwin distribution including setting up sshd.

Yeah... It kind of bugs me that they are soooo intent on *JUST*
installing SSH/SSHd. Cygwin, in its entirety, offers so much
functionality that it is stupid not to install everything. Having
BASH as your shell (instead of command.com) when you SSH into a
Windows box for instance, is a great feature.

Basically, SSHing into a Windows box without a full Cygwin install
is a pretty empty experience.


--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Michael Schaap]

At 23:02 30-8-2001, Michael F. March wrote:
>Yeah... It kind of bugs me that they are soooo intent on *JUST*
>installing SSH/SSHd. Cygwin, in its entirety, offers so much
>functionality that it is stupid not to install everything. Having
>BASH as your shell (instead of command.com) when you SSH into a
>Windows box for instance, is a great feature.

I guess you'll have to excuse Mr. Bradshaw for that.  He is an MSCE, after 
all...

  - Michael

(Oops... did I forget to put a smiley after that?)

-- 
     I always wondered about the meaning of life.   So I looked it
     up in the dictionary under "L" and there it was - the meaning
     of life.  It was not what I expected.                  - Dogbert 


--
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/

Re: Press for Cygwin

[Charles Wilson]

Gerrit P. Haase wrote:


> I just read it. It lasts longer to read this article than installing a 
> complete cygwin distribution including setting up sshd.
> 


Oh, come on, Gerrit -- that's not really fair.  *You* know HOW to do it. 
  Newbies don't -- so it takes 'em longer.  A little handholding, like 
this article, is a good thing. (Of course, it would be *better* if the 
hand-holder [this article] didn't drag the hand-holdee [poor newbie] in 
the WRONG direction by giving BAD advice, but...)

:-)

--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/