From: Keith M. <kei...@to...> - 2007-03-13 09:33:43
|
Leon Zadorin wrote, quoting we: >> I'm wondering why it is that so many people insist on calling >> MSYS `MinSYS'? > > may be because it makes more sense, is more natural and intuitive: > MinGW, MinGWiki, MinSYS... (Minimal(ist) => Min) so consider it a bug > in your naming convention. It was not I who coined the name `MSYS', but I respect the wishes of the gentleman who did, (I believe it was Earnie, and that respect is redoubled on account of the huge effort he has almost singlehandedly put into its development). I will neither bastardise nor denigrate that choice of name, just because you consider it an anomaly; `MSYS' it is, and `MSYS' it will remain; I consider it an insult to the original developer, to carelessly call it `MinSYS'. >> GC> Click on the MSYS icon. Doesn't 'bash' come up? >> >> LZ> rxvt comes up where if I type SET one of the outputs generated >> LZ> is >> LZ> SHELL=/bin/sh >> LZ> and also >> LZ> BASH=/bin/sh >> >> And, within that rxvt, you *are* running bash, aliased to /bin/sh; >> rxvt isn't a shell, > > I did not say it was - simply provided an account of what takes place > when one clicks on the MSYS icon (as per previous poster's suggestion) Your wording was sufficiently ambiguous, leading to the impression that you may have thought that it was... > in an environment where most people frequently keep providing > insufficient info along with their questions/replies, I would have > thought that the act of listing a more detailed account of steps > would have been welcomed It is, and your intention is commendable... > i guess some people like to patronize regardless as perhaps it somehow > justifies their "sense of self". There was no intent, on my part, to patronise; I was merely clarifying a perceived ambiguity. Regards, Keith. |