Re: pathname conversion

[Charles Curley <ccurley@wyoming.com>]

At 04:45 PM 9/23/97 -0400, John R. Dennis wrote:
>>>>>> "Mikey" == Mikey  <jeffdbREMOVETHIS@netzone.com> writes:
>
>    Mikey> Because Microsoft's programmers are IDIOTS, and have been
>    Mikey> ever since 1982 when dos 1 came out...
>
>You listed a number of reason why DOS/Win32 is brain dead (no argument
>here) and why the UNIX solution is superior (once again no
>argument). But what you didn't do is answer my question, which was why
>are tools targeted for one environment not compatible with that environment?
>
>I also detest many of the Microsoft OS features. But what is
>inescapable is the fact the tools are running in a Win32 environment
>with specfic rules for pathnames. I believe that porting includes
>making the tool compatible with the native environment. Whether the
>native environment is brain dead is irrelevant, it is the environment
>you are working in for better or worse, suggesting you use a "real
>operating system" is pointless.
>
>Am I in the minority when I suggest porting includes making the port
>compatible with the target environment?
>
>Please note I am not suggesting removing support for better solutions
>nor am I unappreciative of the fine work Cygnus has done on my
>behalf. I'm just frustrated with using some of the tools because of
>what seems to be a needless incompatibility. I suspect others are in
>the same boat. Anybody else run into this problem?
>
>-- 
>John Dennis (Sharp Eye, Inc.)
>Contract programming services specializing in 3D graphics
> http://www.sharpeye.com
>jdennis@sharpeye.com
>
>-
>For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
>"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".
>

John, I think you should look at the reason *why* Cygnus ported the GNU
tools to NT. They did not do it so they could write Mess-DOS only
applications. They did it so that they could port Unix-style tools and apps
to Wimpdows, and thereby make Wimpdows at least bearable to those who have
seen the power and flexibility of Unix. The idea was to impose a thin
veneer of civilization on a barbaric entitity. So they came up with a
Unix-style pathology to keep Unix programs and tools (and those who port
them) happy.

I have worked with Linux and HP-UX, and I find risable all the hoopla that
the small, flaccid company is making over NT 5.0. Symlinks? Mount points?
Excuse me? But then again, I *wrote* a 32 bit OS before Microsoft did, so I
have never been impressed with their products.

Mount points? Yes, mount points. It looks like Microsoft is finally
admitting that Unix did it right the first time. Just like Intel finally
admitted that Motorola did it right the first time when Intel came out with
a processor capable of a flat 32 bit addressing space. So now you can use
NT mount points to simulate Cygwin mount points.


		-- C^2

Looking for fine software and/or web pages?
http://web.idirect.com/~ccurley
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".