RE: Why the rash of people bypassing setup.exe to install?

["Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>]

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:34:30PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 09:42:19AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> > >On Sat, 2003-02-15 at 08:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >>I suppose so, but, again, it seems like many people *recently* are
> > >>unaware of the setup program entirely.
> > >
> > >Hmm, I think we should add a new screen to setup.exe.
> > >
> > >After the install completes..
> > >
> > >"Your cygwin install is now ready to use.  Please run setup.exe again
> > >if you want to Install new packages, Remove installed packages, or
> > >Update your install with the latest versions of your installed
> > >packages."
> >
> > I like it.  Apparently it is extremely confusing to many people that running
> > "setup.exe" again is how you update your system, Microsoft conventions not
> > withstanding.
>
> So... hey, why is it called "setup"?

Instead of "Install".

>  Isn't it, in the first place the
> "Cygwin Package Manager"?  "cpm"?  Even the suffix of the archive files
> could be cpm...

It's not at all unprecedented for Windows "installers" to be "dual-use" like
Cygwin Setup is.  The control panel API even directly supports such use (eg.
change/remove buttons).  Change the name to "Cygwin Package Manager", and people
will think you need cygwin already installed to use it.  Let's keep the "Setup"
moniker, strive to keep that end as Windowesqe as makes sense, and let the
unavoidable chips fall where they may.

--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer.  Patriot.


--
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/