From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1025 invoked by alias); 11 May 2011 15:55:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 966 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2011 15:54:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits= required= tests= Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (HELO out2.smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 May 2011 15:54:56 +0000 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D1920949 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 11:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 11 May 2011 11:54:55 -0400 Received: from [158.147.67.90] (158-147-67-90.harris.com [158.147.67.90]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AAA0401BC4; Wed, 11 May 2011 11:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4DCAB14F.5000506@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 15:55:00 -0000 From: Charles Wilson Reply-To: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-talk@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Who's using "CYGWIN=tty" and why? References: <20110510211800.CCBDF9D5A21@mail2.intersystems.com> <20110511063433.GD28594@calimero.vinschen.de> <4DCAA510.9000909@sidefx.com> <20110511153613.GB19557@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20110511153613.GB19557@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2011-q2/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 On 5/11/2011 11:36 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:02:40AM -0400, Edward Lam wrote: >> Personally, when I first ran into this problem, I never realized that >> CYGWIN=tty would fix it. I did notice that there was a change in the >> behavior between Cygwin B20 and the Cygwin 1.X releases but I only >> realize now that this was probably the reason. > > Ding, ding ding! > > A B20 reference! B20 was da bomb! I realize this is sacrilege, but...somewhere in my archives I have an old copy of full.exe from B20.1 (as well as the ancient cygutils add-on packages; while the webpages for B20-era cygutils still exist at http://cygutils.fruitbat.org/OBSOLETE/B20/index.html, the tarballs do not. I still have 'em somewhere...) I ought to install it on XP or Vista and see just how awful it really is, compared to modern versions. [/bad sacrilegious Chuck. No cookie!] -- Chuck