On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E] wrote: >Christopher Faylor sent the following at Friday, February 05, 2010 9:59 AM >>On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 03:08:59PM +0000, Dave Korn wrote: >>>On 05/02/2010 11:58, G.W. Haywood wrote: >>>>It's long seemed to me that there's a case for changing the name of >>>>this file. On the average Windows box it is not unusual to see several >>>>files called 'setup.exe' descended from entirely unrelated products. >>> >>>The Cygwin icon is a bit of a dead giveaway. >> >>And, how, exactly, would changing the name of setup.exe to something >>else cause a DECREASE in traffic? It seems like the opposite would be >>true. We'd have to set up a new >>"cygwin-what-happened-to-setup....@cygwin.com" list. > >Actually, for a while I've thought that a name change might be useful. > >The icon identifies it in the GUI, but not on the command line. > >I seem to remember having sometimes being blocked from doing something >with a file named setup.exe. I wasn't blocked after I changed the name >or find some other way to do whatever I was trying to do with it. > >(Though maybe it was with a different "setup.exe".)
Your experiences notwithstanding, obviously thousands of people are running setup.exe without problem. Changing the name would throw a large group of people into confusion. We're not going to change the name. I think the cost outweighs any benefit (and I actually don't see any benefit). cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
