Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Earnie Boyd]

--- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
> Hmm.  I would like to receive opinions on whether people consider this
> announcement to be off-topic.
> 

I would consider it off-topic for this list unless the core of the product uses
Cygwin.  Announcements of products using Cygwin should be considered on topic,
IMO.


=====
---
   Earnie Boyd: < mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com >
            __Cygwin: POSIX on Windows__
Cygwin Newbies: < http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html >
           __Minimalist GNU for Windows__
  Mingw32 List: < http://www.egroups.com/group/mingw32/ >
    Mingw Home: < http://www.mingw.org/ >
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Earnie,

Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com> wrote:

EB> --- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
>> Hmm.  I would like to receive opinions on whether people consider this
>> announcement to be off-topic.
>>

EB> I would consider it off-topic for this list unless the core of the product uses
EB> Cygwin.  Announcements of products using Cygwin should be considered on topic,
EB> IMO.

    Thanks, Earnie. It seems that Free Software really have problems,
and vendor patents are not the biggest of them. Remember one of the
latest Freshmeat editorials where Linux community was compared with
guys kicking each other. Lack of generalization...

     But I write this not to release funny thought (nor to be killed
off from list), but to ask you, as cygwin veteran (as well as other
authorities) whether following will be appropriate.

      I'm going to benchmark as many POSIX implementations as I will
be able to put my hands on (this will ammount to very-very little, and
generally I'd prefer someone else to do this, but I'm afraid noone will
bother). Cygwin will be included. So, will results (with appropriate
disclaimer and links to tests sources) be interesting for cygwin
community/appropriate for cygwin mailing list?


EB> ---
EB>    Earnie Boyd: < mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com >

--
Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist
http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)]

At 02:16 PM 3/13/00, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>Hello Earnie,
>
>Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>EB> --- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
> >> Hmm.  I would like to receive opinions on whether people consider this
> >> announcement to be off-topic.
> >>
>
>EB> I would consider it off-topic for this list unless the core of the product uses
>EB> Cygwin.  Announcements of products using Cygwin should be considered on topic,
>EB> IMO.
>
>     Thanks, Earnie. It seems that Free Software really have problems,
>and vendor patents are not the biggest of them. Remember one of the
>latest Freshmeat editorials where Linux community was compared with
>guys kicking each other. Lack of generalization...
>
>      But I write this not to release funny thought (nor to be killed
>off from list), but to ask you, as cygwin veteran (as well as other
>authorities) whether following will be appropriate.
>
>       I'm going to benchmark as many POSIX implementations as I will
>be able to put my hands on (this will ammount to very-very little, and
>generally I'd prefer someone else to do this, but I'm afraid noone will
>bother). Cygwin will be included. So, will results (with appropriate
>disclaimer and links to tests sources) be interesting for cygwin
>community/appropriate for cygwin mailing list?
>
>
>EB> ---
>EB>    Earnie Boyd: < mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com >
>
>--
>Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist
> http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135



Personally, I think posting comparative data is useful to this list...



Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX
                                        (508) 560-1285 - cell phone



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Chris Faylor]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 06:14:08PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>At 02:16 PM 3/13/00, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>>Thanks, Earnie.  It seems that Free Software really have problems, and
>>vendor patents are not the biggest of them.  Remember one of the latest
>>Freshmeat editorials where Linux community was compared with guys
>>kicking each other.  Lack of generalization...

I have no problem with comparative benchmarks (and I don't think that
cygwin will be a speed demon).  The theory is that these will actually
mention the program that is the focus of this mailing list.

I am not sure what is translating into problems in the Free Software
community.  Perhaps the original poster would like to provide more
detail about what he is referring to; specifically, with regards to
Cygwin, of course.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Jeff Sturm]

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

Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)

[Geoffrey Noer]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000, Jeff Sturm wrote:
[...]
> 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!
[...]

Interesting.  We have been trying to improve (and succeeding in
improving) Cygwin's runtime performance but that's been done comparing
Cygwin to Cygwin-past and not so much by doing benchmarks against
other systems I think.

Have people run any benchmarks comparing Cygwin, Uwin, NuTcracker,
Interix, anything else out there?

-- 
Geoffrey Noer				Email: noer@cygnus.com
Cygnus Solutions, a Red Hat company	http://www.redhat.com/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)

[Scott Blachowicz]

Geoffrey Noer <noer@cygnus.com> wrote:

> ...
> Interesting. We have been trying to improve (and succeeding in improving)
> Cygwin's runtime performance but that's been done comparing Cygwin to
> Cygwin-past and not so much by doing benchmarks against other systems I
> think.

Great! Have you found any way to improve the performance of commands like 'ls'
against remotely mounted file systems? I frequently have things like

 NET USE * \\SERVER\SHARE

where SERVER is located on the far end of a PPTP link to a system a few
thousand miles (18-22 hops over the Internet via an ISDN connection on my end)
and doing an 'ls' is unuseably slow (and I think I've tried various releases
from b17 to b20.1). So, I usually try to remember to use the "command prompt"
and the DIR command which works just fine. I also wave perl scripts over the
remote directories (scripts that do file globbing and file system traversals)
and they run fine...but they don't try to get all the file info that an 'ls
-l' would - ought to try out an 'ls' command from the Perl Power Tools set
sometime...

At any rate...since 'ls' is hardwired into my fingers and I wander into these
directories often enough, using cygwin can be painful, so I haven't gotten
fully into playing with it yet.

> Have people run any benchmarks comparing Cygwin, Uwin, NuTcracker, Interix,
> anything else out there?

That would be useful info!

Scott.Blachowicz@seaslug.org

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)

[Chris Faylor]

On Mon, Mar 14, 1994 at 04:28:47PM -0800, Scott Blachowicz wrote:
>Geoffrey Noer <noer@cygnus.com> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Interesting. We have been trying to improve (and succeeding in improving)
>> Cygwin's runtime performance but that's been done comparing Cygwin to
>> Cygwin-past and not so much by doing benchmarks against other systems I
>> think.
>
>Great! Have you found any way to improve the performance of commands like 'ls'
>against remotely mounted file systems? I frequently have things like

I think Geoff was referring to improvements that are already in Cygwin.  If you
don't see any changes then there aren't any improvements.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re[2]: Cygwin performance (was [ANN] PW32 the...)

[Egor Duda]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2035 bytes --]

Hi!

Ûcott Blachowicz scott@sabmail.rresearch.com wrote:

SB> Great! Have you found any way to improve the performance of commands like 'ls'
SB> against remotely mounted file systems? I frequently have things like

SB>  NET USE * \\SERVER\SHARE

SB> where SERVER is located on the far end of a PPTP link to a system a few
SB> thousand miles (18-22 hops over the Internet via an ISDN connection on my end)
SB> and doing an 'ls' is unuseably slow (and I think I've tried various releases
SB> from b17 to b20.1). So, I usually try to remember to use the "command prompt"
SB> and the DIR command which works just fine. I also wave perl scripts over the
SB> remote directories (scripts that do file globbing and file system traversals)
SB> and they run fine...but they don't try to get all the file info that an 'ls
SB> -l' would - ought to try out an 'ls' command from the Perl Power Tools set
SB> sometime...

basically, reason is following: ls uses "stat" syscall to obtain file
information. stat returns a handful of parameters, including inode,
permissions and others. to obtain _all_ that info, cygwin must open file
(see stat_worker function at winsup/cygwin/syscalls.cc). opening every
file on network share is pretty slow.

luckily, most of time application don't need _all_ stat information.
for example, if you need to get file time or owner or size only,
there's no need to open file. so, some time ago i've proposed to make
cygwin1.dll export function "stat_lite", which works similar to
"stat", but receives additional flags, showing which fields are of
interest to application. so, after that you can recompile ls to
utilize this function. i've compiled custom version of midnight
commander, and directory browsing becomes several times faster for
slow remote shares.

note: you have to recompile your application to utilize "stat_lite"
function.

Egor.            mailto:deo@logos-m.ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Jeff Sturm]

Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
> Personally, I think posting comparative data is useful to this list...

So do I.  If it mentions Cygwin, it's relevant... if it doesn't mention
Cygwin, it's not appropriate for this list... at least that's what
others seem to be saying, and I tend to agree.

Speaking for myself... I don't mind the occaisional off-topic
announcement, but there is always a danger that they can snowball into a
long non-relevant discussion thread, subverting the real purpose of this
list.  I've seen it happen elsewhere.

--
Jeff Sturm
jsturm@sigma6.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Chris Faylor]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 07:18:51PM -0500, Jeff Sturm wrote:
>Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>> Personally, I think posting comparative data is useful to this list...
>
>So do I.  If it mentions Cygwin, it's relevant... if it doesn't mention
>Cygwin, it's not appropriate for this list... at least that's what
>others seem to be saying, and I tend to agree.
>
>Speaking for myself... I don't mind the occaisional off-topic
>announcement, but there is always a danger that they can snowball into a
>long non-relevant discussion thread, subverting the real purpose of this
>list.  I've seen it happen elsewhere.

So have I.  That's my primary concern.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: Re[2]: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 r

[Michael Hirmke]

Paul Sokolovsky [paul-ml@is.lg.ua] wrote:

[...]
>      I'm going to benchmark as many POSIX implementations as I will
>be able to put my hands on (this will ammount to very-very little, and
>generally I'd prefer someone else to do this, but I'm afraid noone will
>bother). Cygwin will be included. So, will results (with appropriate
>disclaimer and links to tests sources) be interesting for cygwin
>community/appropriate for cygwin mailing list?

For me it would certainly be.

[...]
>Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist

Bye.
Michael.
-- 
Michael Hirmke           | Telefon +49 (911) 557999
Georg-Strobel-Strasse 81 | FAX     +49 (911) 557664
90489 Nuernberg          | E-Mail  mailto:mh@mike.franken.de
                         | WWW     http://aquarius.franken.de/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: Windows API calls that don't work? (Was RE: Stupid stupi

[David W Palmer]

Text item: 

     
     Colin, 
      
     I just tried Smith's code under WinNT 4.0 using GNU-Win32 with no 
     source modifications.
     
     It compiled and ran properly with commented out code.  However, it 
     failed as he described with the code included.
     
     I also compiled it under VC++ 5.0 (though I had to change STDCALL to 
     WINAPI).  It worked fine in all cases.  The modified sample program 
     still wouldn't work when compiled with GCC.
     
> Are you using a completely vanilla version of GNU-Win32 or have you 
made changes to things (like the startup code for example)? Could you 
send me a copy of your silently failing binary?
     
     Out of the box GNU-Win32.  I'll send you a mime encoded version of my 
     gcc generated exe.  It's a little large to send to the mailing list.
     
> PS. Any confirmations on that statement about NT from other readers?
    Does stripping an executable make it work? Do you *have* to strip 
    on NT? Is there a difference between the -s link option and using 
    strip after linking?

     I tried the following commands:
        strip test.exe
     and 
        strip test.exe -o tests.exe
     
     Neither cases made any difference.
     
     Running the program from BASH under NTEmacs produces the 
     following stack dump:
     
     //f/pgming/cygtest$ ./test
     (test.exe 1279) In cygwin_except_handler
     (test.exe 1279) Exception trapped!
     (test.exe 1279) exception C0000005 at 4194
     (test.exe 1279) exception: ax 0 bx 240FB00 cx 240FDFC dx A00115C
     (test.exe 1279) exception: si 5 di 100113BF bp 240F258 sp 240F24C
     (test.exe 1279) exception is: STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION
     (test.exe 1279) Stack trace:
     (test.exe 1279) frame 0: sp = 0x240F080, pc = 0x1001282A
     (test.exe 1279) frame 1: sp = 0x240F09C, pc = 0x77F94072
     (test.exe 1279) frame 2: sp = 0x240F0C0, pc = 0x77F88A53
     (test.exe 1279) frame 3: sp = 0x240F14C, pc = 0x77F75E82
     (test.exe 1279) frame 4: sp = 0x240F258, pc = 0x10011BEB
     (test.exe 1279) frame 5: sp = 0x240FF9C, pc = 0x10011BFF
     (test.exe 1279) frame 6: sp = 0x240FFA8, pc = 0x4011B0
     (test.exe 1279) frame 7: sp = 0x240FFB8, pc = 0x401012
     (test.exe 1279) frame 8: sp = 0x240FFC0, pc = 0x77F1AFC1
     (test.exe 1279) frame 9: sp = 0x240FFF0, pc = 0x0
     (test.exe 1279) End of stack trace
     //f/pgming/cygtest$ 
     
     I compiled with symbols "-O -g" with gcc, then using GDB I set a brake 
     point on GetTopWindow().  The access violation was generated before it 
     got to the break point.
     
     BTW: DRS chill.  Phill is just trying to help.
     
     Dave

Text item: External Message Header

The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.

***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.

Precedence: bulk
Sender: owner-gnu-win32@cygnus.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:52:54 +0900
Subject: Windows API calls that don't work? (Was RE: Stupid stupid question :/)
Cc: "'GNU-Win32'" <gnu-win32@cygnus.com>
To: "'A. Phillip Smith'" <asmith@www.aeinc.com>
From: Colin Peters <colin@bird.fu.is.saga-u.ac.jp>
Message-ID: < 01BC386B.709FACA0@gbird0 >
Received: by gbird0 with Microsoft Mail
     id < 01BC386B.709FACA0@gbird0 >; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:52:56 +0900
Received: from gbird0 ([133.49.23.250]) by bird.fu.is.saga-u.ac.jp (8.8.2/3.3W7-
bird) with SMTP id PAA10839; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:53:11 +0900 (JST)
Received: from bird.fu.is.saga-u.ac.jp (bird.fu.is.saga-u.ac.jp [133.49.23.129])

     by cygnus.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA08904
     for <gnu-win32@cygnus.com>; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:54:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
     by cygnus.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA08913
     for gnu-win32-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:54:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cygnus.com (cygnus.com [205.180.230.20]) by mailbag.jf.intel.com
(8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA20943; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 06:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailbag.jf.intel.com (mailbag.jf.intel.com [134.134.248.4]) by re
lay.jf.intel.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA06921; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 06:23:18
 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: gnu-win32-owner@cygnus.com
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Michael Hirmke]

Chris Faylor [cgf@cygnus.com] wrote:

[...]
>>>I don't think that announcements of (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layers
>>>are on topic here but if everyone else disagrees, my opinion can be
>>>changed. 
>>
>>As long as an announcement is the only traffic generated by such an
>>alternative to Cygwin I'd be interested to read it in here.
>
>There is no way to guarantee that.

There is no way to guarantee anything regarding mail or news.
But the original poster could point to an appropriate location for
discussion - as Paul did. If anyone does not follow these instructions
you always can "kill" this guy.

>
>cgf
>

Bye.
Michael.
-- 
Michael Hirmke           | Telefon +49 (911) 557999
Georg-Strobel-Strasse 81 | FAX     +49 (911) 557664
90489 Nuernberg          | E-Mail  mailto:mh@mike.franken.de
                         | WWW     http://aquarius.franken.de/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Chris Faylor]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 12:28:00AM +0200, Michael Hirmke wrote:
>Chris Faylor [cgf@cygnus.com] wrote:
>[...]
>>>>I don't think that announcements of (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layers
>>>>are on topic here but if everyone else disagrees, my opinion can be
>>>>changed. 
>>>
>>>As long as an announcement is the only traffic generated by such an
>>>alternative to Cygwin I'd be interested to read it in here.
>>
>>There is no way to guarantee that.
>
>There is no way to guarantee anything regarding mail or news.
>But the original poster could point to an appropriate location for
>discussion - as Paul did. If anyone does not follow these instructions
>you always can "kill" this guy.

My point is that you either disallow discussion or you allow it.
Saying "It's ok to post but nobody follow up!" is fairly unusual
for a mailing list.

It's usually "This is off-topic" please don't do that again.

The first way you get to (potentially) correct one person.  The second
way you get to correct many people.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Michael Hirmke]

Hi Chris,

[...]
>My point is that you either disallow discussion or you allow it.
>Saying "It's ok to post but nobody follow up!" is fairly unusual
>for a mailing list.
>
>It's usually "This is off-topic" please don't do that again.
>
>The first way you get to (potentially) correct one person.  The second
>way you get to correct many people.

Got your point!

>
>cgf

Bye.
Michael.
-- 
Michael Hirmke           | Telefon +49 (911) 557999
Georg-Strobel-Strasse 81 | FAX     +49 (911) 557664
90489 Nuernberg          | E-Mail  mailto:mh@mike.franken.de
                         | WWW     http://aquarius.franken.de/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

[ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello cygwin,

      I would like to introduce to gnu-win32 community new (yet
another) POSIX "emulation" layer. It is product of some thoughts and
ideas that were spoken, and sufficiently criticized, on cygwin list.
Standard description follows:

"PW32 is implementation of (subset of) POSIX/Unix API for Win32 systems. Its main
concerns are efficiency and full platform coverage, including adequate support for low-end
Win9x systems. PW32 is based on DJGPP's runtime library by DJ Delorie. PW32 is licensed
under LGPL."

      PW32 is only month on public, but before that it was more than
year in development. That means it'd already has something to show,
though of course it's far from being complete. Also, as I hinted above,
it's based on solutions that might be considered questionable, if not
orthodox. Even besides that, I claim that their sole purpose is to get
rid of mean, chore problems plaguing existing implementations, and to
get efficient implementation. So, I took steps to describe these
traits, and provide means of coping with them and integrating with
"native" environment.

0.3.0 is second public and first 'full-fledged' (as for alpha)
release. Changes include:

* Many bugfixes.
* Tested and runs on 9x and NT. On 95, problems known and identified,
with workarounds provided.
* Binaries provided: build environment based on gcc-2.95.2-1-mingw32
(courtesy of Mumit Khan), ash, fileutils, textutils, sed, grep,
sh-utils, diffutils, make.
* Updated documentation.

  Also, PW32 is currently in active development, for example, now
two serious problems with 0.3.0 had been fixed (and available from CVS).


PW32 is hosted on SourceForge, http://pw32.sourceforge.net/

Place to discuss PW32 is mingw32 mailing list,
http://www.egroups.com/list/mingw32



--
Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist
http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Chris Faylor]

Hmm.  I would like to receive opinions on whether people consider this
announcement to be off-topic.

We don't see any DJGPP announcments here.  We don't see any UWIN or Interix
traffic.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that Mikey announced here, either.
(How's that for giving a plug to all of cygwin's competitors?)

I don't think that announcements of (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layers are
on topic here but if everyone else disagrees, my opinion can be changed.

cgf

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:10:26PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>I would like to introduce to gnu-win32 community new (yet another)
>POSIX "emulation" layer.  It is product of some thoughts and ideas that
>were spoken, and sufficiently criticized, on cygwin list.  Standard
>description follows:

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Dr. Volker Zell]

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> writes:

    Chris> Hmm.  I would like to receive opinions on whether people consider this
    Chris> announcement to be off-topic.

It's off-topic.

Ciao
  Volker


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Michael Hirmke]

Hi Chris,

>Hmm.  I would like to receive opinions on whether people consider this
>announcement to be off-topic.
>
[...]
>I don't think that announcements of (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layers are
>on topic here but if everyone else disagrees, my opinion can be changed.

As long as an announcement is the only traffic generated by such an
alternative to Cygwin I'd be interested to read it in here.

>
>cgf

Bye.
Michael.
-- 
Michael Hirmke           | Telefon +49 (911) 557999
Georg-Strobel-Strasse 81 | FAX     +49 (911) 557664
90489 Nuernberg          | E-Mail  mailto:mh@mike.franken.de
                         | WWW     http://aquarius.franken.de/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com

Re: [ANN] PW32 the (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layer 0.3.0 released

[Chris Faylor]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 11:56:00PM +0200, Michael Hirmke wrote:
>Hi Chris,
>
>>Hmm.  I would like to receive opinions on whether people consider this
>>announcement to be off-topic.
>>
>[...]
>>I don't think that announcements of (alternative) Posix-over-Win32 layers are
>>on topic here but if everyone else disagrees, my opinion can be changed.
>
>As long as an announcement is the only traffic generated by such an
>alternative to Cygwin I'd be interested to read it in here.

There is no way to guarantee that.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com