From: sfb@entropy.math.fsu.edu (Steven Bellenot) Subject: Re: philosophy question 5 Nov 1997 07:43:12 -0800 Message-ID: <199711051406.JAA15539.cygnus.gnu-win32@entropy.math.fsu.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: rminnich@sarnoff.com (Ron G. Minnich) Cc: gnu-win32@cygnus.com > > On Tue, 4 Nov 1997, Steven Bellenot wrote: > > I see three directions gnuwin32 could/should go: > > 1. Providing Unix based tools that are usable in win32. How a person > > can live without a reasonable shell, diff, grep and friends ... > > 2. Provide a development environment for the translation of the > > vast freeware of unix to win32. > > 3. Make an environment as nearly unix-like as possible. > > i don't see a conflict. My goal is simple: to take as much control as > possible of NT away from microsoft and into the free software community, > so that on those rare cases when I have to use NT, I don't use their > miserable tools, their expensive software, or depend on their unreliable > SDKs. "Embrace and extend". gnu-win32 is a step toward that end. In the > limit, we boot an NT kernel and run only gnu tools on top. Now that would be > fun. > > ron > Whereas I agree with your goal I would say you fit into goal #3. I would say you would want an environment shell that completely hides the MicroSoft layer below. You would have no need of tools that co-exist, or live in a stand alone environment. From a #3 view point, it might be better to replace MS lame login with an /etc/passwd based system but that certainly would not fit a #1 view point - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".