[sorry. I don't seem to be able to send a typo-free message lat3ly.] On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 02:02:04AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 09:53:12PM -0500, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: >>On Sun, 2011-05-22 at 17:19 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>I don't think we saw anyone step forward with a valid reason why they >>>needed to use CYGWIN=tty over something like "mintty". >>> >>>I've summarized the thread where Corinna asked why people used >>>CYGWIN=tty over CYGWIN=notty below. >>> >>>I don't see any showstoppers here so unless people can provide specific >>>examples of how this change would cause hardwhip, we'll be removing >>>CYGWIN=tty in a snapshot near you soon. >> >>I could add XWin: >> >>http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9763 >> >>And once again, using mintty is a solution. >> >>Since mintty is the solution to so many of these scenarios, shouldn't >>we make it the default terminal (IOW add mintty to Base and replace the >>Cygwin.bat shortcut with mintty's)? The status quo just encourages >>people to use a deficient terminal without any idea that a better one >>exists. > >I may be missing something but I don't see how the above is not a bug. is a bug.
-- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
