[ruby-talk:4902] Re: Os there a cannonical Windows 1.6distribution?

[e-mail] wrote:

> Hi,
>
> ...
> While I favor Cygwin being included, one could legitimately ask, How many
> prospective users will need it to get sufficiently hooked on Ruby such
> that we won't lose them if they have to pick up Cygwin on their own to get
> added functionality (e.g. Tk)? One might extend the pro-Cygwin argument to
> a (minimal) Tcl/Tk distribution as well. (Indeed, the latest Tcl
> distribution that is compatible with expect is bundled with the expect
> distribution.)
>
> ...
>
> Conrad Schneiker
> (This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)

The latest version of Python has decided to include Tk partially on the
grounds of, ||that way we can find where we put it, and it will be the version
that we expect|| (paraphrased).  On these grounds, perhaps, if a minimal
CygWin setup could be created, and possibly of Tk.  That way when the CygWin
folk updated their site, the version that Ruby was using wouldn't change.  And
Ruby would be able to find it's dll's without going through the registry.  If
it can be trimmed down to a reasonable number of megabytes, then that may be a
good approach.  But if it can't, then folk with slow modems or pay-per-byte
connections won't be very happy with it, and may not even look.

-- (c) Charles Hixson
--  Addition of advertisements or hyperlinks to products specifically
prohibited