On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 02:11:40PM +0200, J?rg Schaible wrote: >Phil Betts wrote on Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:34 PM: >> <soapbox> >>Any 3PP that forces one to use their (inevitably out of date) version >>of cygwin (and thereby killing the official installation) is IMO broken >>and the issue should be taken up with them. At the very least, it >>shows they have such little faith in their own software's robustness >>that they won't risk it running on an newer version of cygwin. >> >>Imagine the chaos if ALL software was installed like this. You might >>end up with 100 different versions of cygwin on your PC, and ProductA >>would never be able to talk to ProductB because they'd need two >>different sets of registry settings simultaneously. >> >>I'm sure their justification is that they are reducing support costs by >>ensuring it's running on a known platform. Only if their customer >>support is forced to resolve the problems caused by their installation >>will they learn that this is a false economy. >></soapbox> > >Well, the soapbox is coming true. Or why do you think so much >companies start to deliver their app in a VM? Never trust an OS >installed by a stranger ... hehehe
This is probably cygwin-talk material (Reply-To set) but is that really true? Are companies really packaging products with their own VM? cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
