RE: "start" for Cygwin

["Roth, Kevin P." <KPRoth at MarathonOil dot com>]

I prefer start over cygstart. Here's my $0.02, FWIW:

 o Newbies are more likely to find "start" than "cygstart". And
   they'll be impressed that "start appname" JustWorks(tm).

 o Oldies (like me, who can't always remember things very well)
   wouldn't have to learn a new command name.

 o "most" people probably have cygwin/bin at the beginning of 
   their path when using BASH, but towards the end of their path
   (at least after their windows directories) when running under
   COMMAND.COM or CMD.EXE. If they don't, it's my personal 
   opinion that they should. Under this scenario, win9x's 
   command.com will find windows' start.exe, while bash will 
   find cygutils' start.exe; keeping both very happy.

 o for those (few most likely?) who are running win9x/me, and
   have cygwin/bin at the beginning of windows' PATH, *and* have
   loaded the non-default package cygutils, will eventually 
   figure out why start may no longer work...

 o If cygutils' start.exe can be made to work just like 
   windows' start.exe (when called from a windows command.com
   shell), then we theoretically eliminate all problems, right?

Thanks,
--Kevin



-----Original Message-----

>On Sunday 3 Mar 02, Robert Collins writes:
> > I think cygstart or something like that will eliminate the potiential
> > for touble.

At 12:58 3-3-2002, David Starks-Browning wrote:
>Indeed, that would solve it!

From: Michael Schaap [mailto:cygwin@mscha.org]
It would.

I have mixed feelings about this, though.

--
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/