Hi Hans-Bernhard, On Mon, 15 Mar 2021, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
> Am 15.03.2021 um 04:19 schrieb Johannes Schindelin via Cygwin-patches: > > > On Sat, 13 Mar 2021, Joe Lowe wrote: > > > > > I agree on the usefulness to the user of showing appexec target > > > executable as symlink target. But I am uncertain about the effect on > > > code. > > > > Maybe. But I am concerned about the effect of not being able to do > > anything useful with app execution aliases in the first place. > > That argument might hold more sway if Windows itself didn't quite so > completely hide that information from users, too. "So completely"? It at least executes them, and it does offer you to turn them aliases on and off (see https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/102096-manage-app-execution-aliases-windows-10-a.html) Granted, the user interface has a lot of room for improvement, but if you are dead set on finding out what, say, that `idle.exe` app execution alias refers to, you can go to `Settings>Apps>Apps & features>App execution aliases` and find out that it is owned by the Python 3.7 package. That does not give you the path, but it does give you way more information than you claimed Windows would offer to you. > I found only one Windows native tool that will even show _any_ kind of > information about these reparse points: fsutil. That is a) only available as > part of the highly optional WSL feature and b) only gives you a hexdump of the > actual data, without any meaningful interpretation. The `fsutil` program, contrary to your claim, is available without WSL: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/windows-commands/fsutil And yes, for under-documented reparse points, the tool gives you only a hexdump. One of those under-documented reparse point types is the WSL symbolic link, which you will notice are supported in Cygwin, removing quite some sway from your argument... > For something that Windows itself gives the "no user servicable parts inside" > treatment to the extent it does for these reparse points, I rather doubt that > Cygwin users really _need_ to see it. Well, that's funny: you are talking to one Cygwin user who needs to see it. So I feel a bit ignored by you there. Ciao, Johannes
