X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: "DePriest, Jason R." Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:06:22 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 'cp' utility bug when .exe file exist. To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM, wrote: > I disagree. =A0This seems to me to be adopting the Microsoft policy of do= ing > the user's thinking for them: =A0"I don't care what they want - we know > what's best for them." =A0If a person wants to have "foo" and "foo.exe" in > the same directory, that should be allowed. =A0A few times getting tripped > up by the wrong thing executing will be a good life lesson for the person, > and teach about how different operating systems work to boot. =A0Should I > create "foo" as an executable, and "foo.exe" exists, then if I want to run > "foo.exe", I should have to call it out specifically. =A0I can see this > might cause some confusion should, unbeknownst to the user, "foo.exe" > exists earlier in the path than "foo", but that would become an > education on how to use the PATH variable. =A0This confusion arises > from Cygwin's kowtowing to Microsoft's dubious idea of using extensions to > control the handling of files. If you took away Cygwin's .exe extension handling and just relied on file permissions like Unix, then using Cygwin tools from a cmd.exe prompt would become problematic. Windows wants that .exe (or .bat or .cmd or .msi, etc) extension and doesn't give a whip if you chmod a file's permissions +x. Without an extension, Windows has no idea what to do with the file. That's fine if you never do anything with Cygwin commands outside of a Cygwin shell, but I don't think this is a globally desirable behaviour. -Jason -- 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