Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm 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 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:22:27 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: The Empire Strikes Back...sorta Message-ID: <20020710062227.GA21411@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <3D2B2E23 DOT 7030704 AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:35:51PM -0400, Max wrote: >The only thing that looks remotely interesting is the POSIX compliant >subsystem, which Cygwin is developing at, in my opinion, a very fast >rate ... in my opinion .. I think Cygwin will be much more >feature-rich and stable than SFU will ever be .... I tried an early >version of the UNIX services for Windows on NT 4 ... and they were >awful ... that same year there was a port of IE 4 for Solaris ... >awful as well! Thanks for the compliment but, just to be clear, a POSIX compliant subsystem stands a better chance of being more feature rich and (especially) faster than cygwin. A subsystem has access to more low level features of the kernel. So it can do things like properly fork or properly handle a case sensitive file system. I never actually heard anyone say that Interix was bad before. I always thought it was probably a pretty good product. The guys working on it are certainly sharp. Hmm. I have an unopened copy of Interix from a couple of years ago sitting on my desk. I wonder if Microsoft will upgrade me. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/