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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 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/