Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Message-ID: <38CD87BE.B69B05A7@sigma6.com> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:28:46 -0500 From: Jeff Sturm Organization: sigma6 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cgf@cygnus.com CC: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released References: <20000313180414.15800.qmail@web107.yahoomail.com> <20000313180414.15800.qmail@web107.yahoomail.com> <9886.000313@is.lg.ua> <4.3.2.20000313181326.00b8a590@pop.ma.ultranet.com> <20000313185555.B24233@cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris Faylor wrote: > I have no problem with comparative benchmarks (and I don't think that > cygwin will be a speed demon). Don't be so sure. I've used GCC on Interix for a while... let's just say that Cygwin rocks. The Interix product relies heavily on the POSIX subsystem, instead of shared memory as Cygwin does. For many of my user applications the subsystem process actually consumes more CPU time than the application! Presumably, the tradeoff is between performance and security. Interix isn't vulnerable to the same exploits as Cygwin. -- Jeff Sturm jsturm@sigma6.com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com