From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31538 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2010 06:58:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 31528 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jan 2010 06:58:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FH_DATE_PAST_20XX,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (HELO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 06:57:33 +0000 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.internal [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA87C957D for ; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 01:57:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from heartbeat1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:57:31 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (user-0c6sbc4.cable.mindspring.com [24.110.45.132]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A18A49F15B; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 01:57:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B3D9CD4.3040908@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 06:58:00 -0000 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Talk Amongst Yourselves Subject: Re: Can't use key authentication on x64 Server 2003 R2 References: <4B3AC168.3040000@eburg.com> <4B3D42F5.7010003@eburg.com> <4B3D56D6.4050101@cygwin.com> In-Reply-To: <4B3D56D6.4050101@cygwin.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2010-q1/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > On 12/31/2009 07:33 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> For the time being, I've reinstalled Cygwin 1.5 on the problematic host. >> It still works as well as it ever did. > > Oh good. 1.5 must be the new b20. Oh no it idnt! You did NOT just say that! NOTHING will ever approach the clean elegant simplicity that was b20. b20 was a veritable GOD among unix API layers! 1.5 was indeed pretty good, but it is hardly worthy to lick the dust off the boots of b20. b20-4evah! yeah, baby, yeah!