Re: name: GNU/cygwin system
Please do not send me private mail concerning cygwin. These questions belong on the cygwin mailing list. I've redirected this mail and set the Reply-To appropriately. --Chuck zhlg_shuhan wrote: Mr. chales, I know to you through cygwin mail list.I am a beginner of cygwin,so many problems occur when I use it.for example: bash always alarms at beginning of new command line: I have no name!@HZ_RD_ZHANGL ~ $_ I want useradd command but failed for lack of useradd command. how can I name it? tks.regards zhangliang __ === ÐÂÀËÃâ·Ñµç×ÓÓÊÏä (http://mail.sina.com.cn) ÐÂÀË·ÖÀàÐÅÏ¢£º¶þÊÖÊг¡×ßÒ»×ߣ¬¸Ã³öÊÖʱ¾Í³öÊÖ£¡ (http://classad.sina.com.cn/2shou/) -- 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/
RE: name: GNU/cygwin system
The file /etc/passwd needs to be properly created. Type 'man mkpasswd' for better directions than I can give, and search for mkpasswd in the mailing lists. Also http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-utils.html If that doesn't work, change the environment variable PS1 to something less alarming :) Question to everyone else: Should setup attempt to run mkpasswd as part of the postinstall of cygwin (or any of the shells)? Or at least get a mention in the FAQ? It was a while before I realised this for myself. Dave. zhlg_shuhan wrote: I know to you through cygwin mail list.I am a beginner of cygwin,so many problems occur when I use it.for example: bash always alarms at beginning of new command line: I have no name!@HZ_RD_ZHANGL ~ $_ I want useradd command but failed for lack of useradd command. how can I name it? tks.regards zhangliang -- 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/
RE: name: GNU/cygwin system
-Original Message- From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:37 PM Anyway, though I think just about everybody who's got any familiarity with the free software world at all knows that Linux packages (RPMs and Debian packages) are available for all sorts of things, I'm not sure how many are aware that: * through Cygwin, many of the same tools available as packages for Linux distributions are also available as packages for Windows (and Cygwin provides an environment for compiling and installing many others that aren't packaged yet) * Cygwin provides a sophisticated package management system that makes it easy to install and update packages One of the things is that Cygwin's package list is still pretty small. On Debian for instance, one can grab 3 or even 4 different IMAP daemons. On Cygwin, you're lucky to get one. This is a maturity thing, but still a significant difference. Don't get me wrong - we do appreciate extra awareness of Cygwin - but there is a lot to do. One of the most significant things you can do is maintain a package. Just a single one. Then it's one more thing available for use on cygwin, and one more community that becomes aware of us. The libxml/libxslt community is aware of cygwin for instance - because as maintainer I am present on the upstream lists. I don't what can be done to raise more awareness about Cygwin -- especially about the availability of packages; but in part, I guess that more people should -- when, on mailing lists or websites, they're pointing out that certain applications are available as Linux packages -- take the time to check to see whether particular packages are available for Cygwin, and acknowledge when they are. IMO the biggest awareness raiser is someone present in both the cygwin and the upstream community who raises the presence of binary packages in peoples awareness. That's what I've tried to do for the DocBook/XML/SGML packages that Jon Foster and Markus Hoenicka put together -- by adding information about them to the DocBook Wiki: Cool. You might like to point out that in the near future those packages will be available without needing the custom URL. They will be mirrored globally. About the page at the second URL: I hope I'm not using the Cygwin logo inappropriately. If I am, somebody please let me know (I couldn't find any information at the Cygwin site about use of the logo). That seems fine to me. I'm not aware of any strict policy about the logo. Chris? Are there other promotional logos/buttons/banners I could/should use instead? Maybe a version of the Cygwin banner (http://cygwin.com/cygwin.jpg)? I think that the banner is a beter promotional tool. Words help! Rob -- 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/
Re: name: GNU/cygwin system
Christopher Faylor wrote: You're working from an assumption that cygwin is an unknown project. It is currently the most popular project on sources.redhat.com, so I don't think it is suffering too badly from lack of awareness. I don't disagree with your conclusion, Chris, but you're using a flawed model. So *what* if cygwin is the most popular project on sources.redhat? Sure, sources.redhat hosts gcc and binutils -- but how many people actively hack gcc, and/or download it directly from its homepage? Most people just get gcc (and bzip, and ... ) from their distributor. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people use gcc daily (now THAT's publicity) -- but only a tiny tiny tiny fraction will ever visit sources.redhat. With cygwin, everyone who uses it will at some point visit sources.redhat...that is cygwin's primary locus of publicity. The other projects have many more publicity locii. However, I do agree that cygwin is pretty well known -- if only as the black sheep of the free software family (Imagine! Allowing Gatesians to use GNU software. The horror!) Or better, as the dangling carrot of the free software world within the walls that Bill built. --Chuck -- 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/
RE: name: GNU/cygwin system
I don't disagree with your conclusion, Chris, but you're using a flawed model. So *what* if cygwin is the most popular project on sources.redhat? Just for the record: any number of unix + windows related searches (bash for windows, gnu for windows, unix for windows, gcc for windows, free windows compiler, etc.) turn up the Cygwin home in the top ten links (in most of my examples, as the #1 link.) At my previous company - with many hardcore Windows software folks - I think that just about everyone had at least heard of Cygwin, and a majority of us had used it at one point or another (either at work, at home, or both.) Keep in mind, this was in Pittsburgh, PA - not Silicon Valley, Boston, or any other traditional hotbed of cutting-edge technology. Anecdotal evidence, perhaps. But I honestly don't think that Cygwin has any kind of visibility problem. -Samrobb -- 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/
RE: name: GNU/cygwin system
However, I do agree that cygwin is pretty well known -- if only as the black sheep of the free software family (Imagine! Allowing Gatesians to use GNU software. The horror!) To quote the great Maurice 'Mad Dog' Vachon, What matters is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. Or maybe that was Eisenhower. -- 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/
RE: name: GNU/Cygwin system
LSB is not just about binary compatibility; it's also about file hierarchies, configuration mechanisms, and utilities for installation and maintenance. I'd like to bring attention to standardisation of XML resources. Some packages are more or less architecture-independent, e.g., TeX/LaTeX formats and SGML/XML DTDs. Keeping in line with LSB minimizes the porting effort. While there's an established way to handle TeX resources, things are not quite sorted out for SGML/XML. A proposed standard for installation and maintenance of SGML resources [1] didn't make it into the LSB 1.1. The standardisation effort was recently restarted [2]. XML and data- and transaction-oriented applications must now be taken into consideration; the original proposal was strictly SGML-and-document oriented (and focused rather narrowly on DocBook). This has been discussed and is, to the best of my knowledge, acknowledged. Just as XML is not just about documents, it's also rather promiscuous about platforms. Java is very important in this respect, but Cygwin might also play a role here. Cygwin seems to be popular with some of the XML hot-shots when they for some reason or another have to work on Win32 boxes. I'm afraid I can't offer much more -- except that I think we should continue discussing such matters here and on the cygwin-apps list. kind regards Peter Ring [1] http://people.debian.org/~mrj/lsb-sgmlspec_cvs20020308/index.html [2] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/lsb-xml-sgml -Original Message- From: Charles Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 17. maj 2002 18:49 To: Michael Smith Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: name: GNU/Cygwin system snip / To tell you the truth, I don't see there being much hope -- or reason for -- the LSB to take cygwin into account. Thanks to various microsoftisms, we're too weird. Non-ELF shared libraries split into runtime and linktime pieces. Runtime loader works completely differently than ld.so, so library versioning is handled completely differently. Then, we have two different windowing systems...native and X which must coexist. The best I can see is for cygwin to take what LSB does, and try to follow it as best we can while making allowances for the uniqueness of the platform. We are the best ones to judge where those allowances must be made -- not them. While the linux distributors can (eventually) reach a compromise position that all linux distributions can follow, there is no compromise here -- they'd have to put special case exceptions in their document specifically for cygwin. But there's no need to uglify the LSB with all that: What is the main purpose of the LSB? Binary interoperability, so that third party software vendors can ship ONE package that is guaranteed to work on every LSB-compliant Linux platform. Doesn't really apply to cygwin...and oh, yeah, how does RMS feel about making life easier for proprietary (possibly closed source) vendors? Would he want the name GNU associated with THAT? snip / -- 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/
Re: name: GNU/cygwin system
Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] It's never been a goal of Cygwin to adhere to something like the LSB and we already refer to the Single UNIX Specification for reference. This is another thing that you could have gleaned from inspection of the mailing list archives. Anyone who might be interested in participating in something like the LSB is undoubtedly already aware of it. Respectfully, you seem rather new to the project. I wouldn't feel comfortable with you representing it in any way. You're right of course. I just intended the LSB and name suggestions in part as suggestions to maybe help raise more awareness of Cygwin in the free software community (though I can see now that these particular suggestions weren't terrifically thoughtful ones). In hindsight, I realize that the name suggestion was pretty simple-minded (and I apologize once again for not having the courtesy to first take the time to check the list archive to see if it had already been discussed). Anyway, though I think just about everybody who's got any familiarity with the free software world at all knows that Linux packages (RPMs and Debian packages) are available for all sorts of things, I'm not sure how many are aware that: * through Cygwin, many of the same tools available as packages for Linux distributions are also available as packages for Windows (and Cygwin provides an environment for compiling and installing many others that aren't packaged yet) * Cygwin provides a sophisticated package management system that makes it easy to install and update packages I don't what can be done to raise more awareness about Cygwin -- especially about the availability of packages; but in part, I guess that more people should -- when, on mailing lists or websites, they're pointing out that certain applications are available as Linux packages -- take the time to check to see whether particular packages are available for Cygwin, and acknowledge when they are. That's what I've tried to do for the DocBook/XML/SGML packages that Jon Foster and Markus Hoenicka put together -- by adding information about them to the DocBook Wiki: http://docbook.org/wiki/moin.cgi/DocBookPackages http://docbook.org/wiki/moin.cgi/CygwinPackages About the page at the second URL: I hope I'm not using the Cygwin logo inappropriately. If I am, somebody please let me know (I couldn't find any information at the Cygwin site about use of the logo). Are there other promotional logos/buttons/banners I could/should use instead? Maybe a version of the Cygwin banner (http://cygwin.com/cygwin.jpg)? Cheers, --Mike -- 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/
name: GNU/Cygwin system
I'm not trolling (and maybe for all I know, this has already been talked out) but I wanted to suggest that it might be appropriate for Cygwin to describe and advertise itself as the GNU/Cygwin system, giving credit where credit it very much due -- just as Debian does by describing itself as a GNU/Linux system. IMO, the fact the GNU system (not the Linux kernel) is really the essential ingredient is pointed to by the fact that many of the same concerns that affect maintainers of the various Linux distros (and especially, maintainers of packages on those distros) also very much affect Cygwin maintainers and packagers. For example, it seems like representatives from Cygwin should be involved with the Linux Standard Base effort: http://www.linuxbase.org/ And the effort should be called GNU Standard Base instead (though I realize that's not s ever actually going to happen). --Mike Smith -- Michael Smith, Tokyo, Japanhttp://sideshowbarker.net #x30DE;#x30A4;#x30AF; Just as there are four letters in the name of God, there are four seasons. This is because of THE LAW OF PSYCHIC EQUIVALENCE. the law of psychic equivalence is encoded in the Bible. ALL modern problems stem from the failure to recognise God's law of electro-atomic-universal compensation. http://www.logopoeia.com/wisdom/ -- 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/
RE: name: GNU/Cygwin system
-Original Message- From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 4:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: name: GNU/Cygwin system I'm not trolling (and maybe for all I know, this has already been talked out) but I wanted to suggest that it might be appropriate for Cygwin to describe and advertise itself as the GNU/Cygwin system, giving credit where credit it very much due -- just as Debian does by describing itself as a GNU/Linux system. It has been. See the list archives - and then you would have known. IMO, the fact the GNU system (not the Linux kernel) is really the essential ingredient is pointed to by the fact that many of the same concerns that affect maintainers of the various Linux distros (and especially, maintainers of packages on those distros) also very much affect Cygwin maintainers and packagers. Yes, I can really see how some of the early packages like openssl owe so much to the FSF. Don't get me wrong, I've signed copyright assigment for various project contributions to the FSF and nearly always code under the GPL. However, the manpower put in my the volunteers here is certainly a much more important contribution than the existence of the software itself. Firstly, one can, starting with a linux system, generate a windows system will ALL of the proffered binaries. Thus the actual value added of the software's existence is minimal. Iy's the maintainer time that adds all the value to end users by offering binaries. Secondly, GNU is already in the name: Gnu + Cygnus + Windows = Cygwin is the logo on the website. Calling it GNU/Cygwin would be redundant. Thirdly, If we where to look at adding things to the name, I'd be strongly pushing for cgf/djd/cv/ed/rc/lh/eb/jt/Cygwin. And more could be added there quite reasonably. For example, it seems like representatives from Cygwin should be involved with the Linux Standard Base effort: http://www.linuxbase.org/ That would be nice. I don't know of anyone here with the time. Would you like to be such a liason? And the effort should be called GNU Standard Base instead (though I realize that's not s ever actually going to happen). I disagree here. It's quite feasible to put the BSD cp/tar/mv etc onto a linux kernel based system, and the LSB should still apply. Likewise the LSB should still apply to a GNU/Hurd kernel based machine, so I do agree that the name LSB is wrong - just not with your replacement. Something like the Unix Standard Base would be appropriate, with IBM/HP/SUN/QNX/BSD folk also involved. At this point, I've gone offtopic, so I'll just be quite now :} Rob -- 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/
Re: name: GNU/Cygwin system
Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- From: Michael Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] I'm not trolling (and maybe for all I know, this has already been talked out) but I wanted to suggest that it might be appropriate for Cygwin to describe and advertise itself as the GNU/Cygwin system, giving credit where credit it very much due -- just as Debian does by describing itself as a GNU/Linux system. It has been. See the list archives - and then you would have known. Sorry about that. I just did a search now and see that it was discussed on the list back in April. IMO, the fact the GNU system (not the Linux kernel) is really the essential ingredient is pointed to by the fact that many of the same concerns that affect maintainers of the various Linux distros (and especially, maintainers of packages on those distros) also very much affect Cygwin maintainers and packagers. Yes, I can really see how some of the early packages like openssl owe so much to the FSF. Don't get me wrong, I've signed copyright assigment for various project contributions to the FSF and nearly always code under the GPL. However, the manpower put in my the volunteers here is certainly a much more important contribution than the existence of the software itself. Firstly, one can, starting with a linux system, generate a windows system will ALL of the proffered binaries. Thus the actual value added of the software's existence is minimal. Iy's the maintainer time that adds all the value to end users by offering binaries. Secondly, GNU is already in the name: Gnu + Cygnus + Windows = Cygwin is the logo on the website. Calling it GNU/Cygwin would be redundant. Thirdly, If we where to look at adding things to the name, I'd be strongly pushing for cgf/djd/cv/ed/rc/lh/eb/jt/Cygwin. And more could be added there quite reasonably. Fair enough. I certainly didn't mean at all to downplay the work that all of you have done and are continuing to do. For example, it seems like representatives from Cygwin should be involved with the Linux Standard Base effort: http://www.linuxbase.org/ That would be nice. I don't know of anyone here with the time. Would you like to be such a liason? I would. I'm far from the best qualified person to be acting as a rep for Cygwin in any standards effort, but unless and untile someone else from core team has the time to do it, I volunteer. I'm actually already going to be involved with the LSB XML/SGML working group. And the effort should be called GNU Standard Base instead (though I realize that's not s ever actually going to happen). I disagree here. It's quite feasible to put the BSD cp/tar/mv etc onto a linux kernel based system, and the LSB should still apply. Likewise the LSB should still apply to a GNU/Hurd kernel based machine, so I do agree that the name LSB is wrong - just not with your replacement. Something like the Unix Standard Base would be appropriate, with IBM/HP/SUN/QNX/BSD folk also involved. Well, there is the Single UNIX Specification: http://www.opengroup.org/austin/ Looking at the list of participants there, I see that I see that Cygnus and Red Hat are (or were) involved. At this point, I've gone offtopic, so I'll just be quite now :} Yeah, I guess the discussion probably isn't of interest to most people on this list, so I'll shut up about it now too. But if somebody can let me know off-list who I should follow up with regarding participation in the LSB, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, --Mike -- 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/
Re: name: GNU/cygwin system
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 02:51:22AM -0500, Michael Smith wrote: At this point, I've gone offtopic, so I'll just be quite now :} Yeah, I guess the discussion probably isn't of interest to most people on this list, so I'll shut up about it now too. But if somebody can let me know off-list who I should follow up with regarding participation in the LSB, I'd appreciate it. We are rather adamant here about keeping discussions public unless they really really have to be public. It's never been a goal of Cygwin to adhere to something like the LSB and we already refer to the Single UNIX Specification for reference. This is another thing that you could have gleaned from inspection of the mailing list archives. Anyone who might be interested in participating in something like the LSB is undoubtedly already aware of it. Respectfully, you seem rather new to the project. I wouldn't feel comfortable with you representing it in any way. cgf -- 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/
Re: name: GNU/Cygwin system
Michael Smith wrote: I'm not trolling (and maybe for all I know, this has already been talked out) but I wanted to suggest that it might be appropriate for Cygwin to describe and advertise itself as the GNU/Cygwin system, giving credit where credit it very much due -- just as Debian does by describing itself as a GNU/Linux system. IMO, the fact the GNU system (not the Linux kernel) is really the essential ingredient is pointed to by the fact that many of the same concerns that affect maintainers of the various Linux distros (and especially, maintainers of packages on those distros) also very much affect Cygwin maintainers and packagers. For example, it seems like representatives from Cygwin should be involved with the Linux Standard Base effort: http://www.linuxbase.org/ And the effort should be called GNU Standard Base instead (though I realize that's not s ever actually going to happen). Yes. It's already been discussed and dismissed. A non-troll would have the decency to search the mailing list archives first and verify that YES, this issue has been discussed already, and acknowledge the points raised in the previous discussion -- BEFORE bringing it up again. IMNSHO, the GNU Glory Brigade can go to hell. I appreciate what GNU/FSF/RMS has done for truly free software -- but turning around and attempting to claim ownership and naming rights on every piece of free software on earth is NOT acceptable. Cygwin (the platform) has software from apache (not GNU), XFree86 (not GNU), openssh/openssl (not GNU), pine (not GNU), unzip/zip (not GNU)...and many others that are NOT GNU. Cygwin is not GNU/Cygwin. For the same reasons, Linux is not GNU/Linux. Anyone who thinks differently is buying in to the cult of personality (sic) of RMS. Just because Debian has followed the pied piper doesn't mean we have to line up with the other children. And on a cygwin-specific note, I'm sure RMS doesn't want anything to do with us. I think he's probably a bit PO'ed that ANY GNU software is running on a proprietary platform like windows. He views that as enabling behavior...enabling people to stay locked in the proprietary prison. For RMS, like all ideologues, it is all or nothing -- there is no half loaf. I sure he doesn't WANT the name GNU associated with Cygwin/Windows. (To be clear: I'm glad RMS/FSF/GNU is out there. The world NEEDS such ideologues -- to keep the rest of us honest. But that doesn't mean we must always agree with them or obey them.) Further, for the same reasons, no GNU-purist would EVER have put the hundreds of hours into porting and packaging that the volunteer maintainers here have done -- for a platform that exists on top of a (gasp, horror) proprietary OS. As Robert has pointed out, the contributions of those maintainers are equally if not more important to cygwin than those of GNU. Without the VM's, there would be no GNU software -- or non-GNU software -- on the cygwin platform. Without GNU, we would be missing many packages -- some very important, like gcc. So, if we rename stuff, it would be just as valid to say, as Robert does, that it should be cgf/djd/cv/ed/rc/lh/eb/jt/Cygwin. But English is not Entish -- we don't tell the entire lifestory of a project within the project's name. As far as the LSB goes, currently it applies only to linux-based systems; GNU/Hurd isn't out yet. But, there's no reason why the LSB wouldn't apply equally well to BSD systems, which don't necessarily have any GNU software on them. So GNU-SB is also incorrect. (The GNU Glory Brigade reminds me of US Senator Byrd of West Virginia -- there's not a bridge or a hospital or park bench built in that state that isn't named after Robert C. Byrd. They don't call Byrd the king of pork for nothing.) To tell you the truth, I don't see there being much hope -- or reason for -- the LSB to take cygwin into account. Thanks to various microsoftisms, we're too weird. Non-ELF shared libraries split into runtime and linktime pieces. Runtime loader works completely differently than ld.so, so library versioning is handled completely differently. Then, we have two different windowing systems...native and X which must coexist. The best I can see is for cygwin to take what LSB does, and try to follow it as best we can while making allowances for the uniqueness of the platform. We are the best ones to judge where those allowances must be made -- not them. While the linux distributors can (eventually) reach a compromise position that all linux distributions can follow, there is no compromise here -- they'd have to put special case exceptions in their document specifically for cygwin. But there's no need to uglify the LSB with all that: What is the main purpose of the LSB? Binary interoperability, so that third party software vendors can ship ONE package that is guaranteed to work on every LSB-compliant Linux platform. Doesn't really
