> An explanation of why this ".lnk" ism came into being. > > I, as I user do not think its justified, but somebody had the idea and sold > it, but apparently, we, users were not informed or asked about it. > > I has also broke other programs that ran fine with, well symbolic limks. The > kind we are used to and do not need ".lnk" extensions for. > > What is the rationale for introducing this monster.... or is there a good > one. > > Please let us all know. > > Regards > > P.s. should not need all that nonsense below.. And sorry to say I am not > familiar with this r attribute, except as a read(r)permission. Is the group > intentionally trying to be obtuse?
OK, you've just posted to this group for the first time. You're ignorant of some basic things about Cygwin and DOS. Well, that's no sin; people will help you if you're polite. But you obviously haven't read the Cygwin documentation, or you would know the answers to some of your questions. So now you're starting to irritate people. And what do you do next? You insult the project co-leader-- a person who, unlike you, has earned considerable respect on this list-- and say that everything must be her/our fault! Congratulations, you have just alienated the entire community of people who might have helped you, in your very first post. This is quite an accomplishment, I've only rarely seen it done. Andrew. -- 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/
