From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: dev/null Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 06:53:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010108095318.E26292@redhat.com> References: <20010107124950.A22232@redhat.com> <3A597C2F.29181.362977A9@localhost> X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00284.html On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:37:03AM -0500, Soren Andersen wrote: >On 7 Jan 2001, an entity purporting to be Christopher Faylor >[Christopher Faylor ] wrote [regarding Re: dev/null] > >soren: >>> But manually, I just use 'nul'. > >Chris: >> /dev/null in cygwin eventually translates to the Windows NUL device. > >I figured. > >> There is no reason to use 'NUL' rather than '/dev/null' since they are >> both the same thing ... unless you enjoy using MS-DOS constructs rather than >> UNIX ones. That's sort of anti-Cygwin, though. > >NO! NO! I am not anti-Cygwin ;-). I LUV Cygwin. > >As a background general-knowledge sort of thing, I think its good to know >this. Allegory ... if you were stranded on a desert island with no way to buy >tiolet paper, would it be good to know how to make plant leaves very soft .. >? Someone might someday be working out a problem without Cygwin >around. I don't WISH it on them, but it could happen. Hopefully these people are reading the appropriate mailing lists and newsgroups for non-cygwin problems, then. In general, I think it is a good idea to use cygwin constructs as much as possible. Then, if/when we modify cygwin so that it can work around the brain-dead, nul, com, aux, prn stupidity foisted on us by Windows' MS-DOS roots, people won't be scratching their heads thinking "But I read that 'NUL' should work fine in the cygwin mailing list." cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple