From:	jqb AT netcom DOT com (Jim Balter)
Subject:	Re: The mail list in a news group
23 Jan 1997 02:07:03 -0800 :
Approved:	cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution:	cygnus
Message-ID:	<32E6D700.386E.cygnus.gnu-win32@netcom.com>
References:	<Pine DOT SOL DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970122193517 DOT 22101A-100000 AT kruuna DOT Helsinki DOT FI>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
Original-To:	Carl J R Johansson <cjjohans AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
Original-CC:	gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Original-Sender:	owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

Carl J R Johansson wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 21 Jan 1997, Jim Balter wrote:
> 
> >
> > You must be reading a different web page than I am.  The one at
> > http://www.cygnus.com/misc/gnu-32 opens with
> >
> > "The GNU-WIN32 Project Page
> >
> > The GNU-Win32 tools are ports of the popular GNU development tools to
> > Windows NT/95 for the x86 and powerpc processors."
> >
> > For those familar with it, "GNU development tools" does not mean "a
> > compiler".  It includes the entire c library, at a minimum.  The page
> > goes on:
> >
> But I don't understand what bash, tar, gzip, ls etc. have to do with
> compiling programs. There are already fully functional equivalents on
> NT.

bash is integral to make, configuration, etc.  I can't imagine
what "fully functional equivalent" you think NT has to bash.
Nor to ls, for that matter.  Not even tar or gzip, not out of the
box.
But this isn't really the point; the point is that cygwin was born
unix and will live unix, even if compiler is separated out, as with
mingw32.

> Where have I ever mentioned "eliminating cygwin.dll"?

You aren't the only person in this discussion; there has been such talk.

> I was talking
> about project priorities (Unix port or fully functional compiler, with
> full support for the Win32 API as well). In my view the compiler should
> be created first with all the functionality, then people could port 
the
> programs they like with it. (Possibly adding a GUI here and there, some
> people prefer things that way.)

Look, I really don't know what you are on about.  A "fully functional
compiler *has* been created, with all the functionality of the GNU
version on unix, modulo some bugs.  The compiler was working long
before the cygnus people started getting into the fine details of the
library, so the priorities were totally reasonable.  But now,
Improving the cygwin library has obviously been high on Geoff Noer's
priorities because he had to do a lot for self-hosting, fork, ctrl-C,
pipe, fsync etc., problems that real live people have been posting here
about all along.  That is and should be the priority.  In case you
missed it, cygnus is a unix/GNU company, and I'm sure that, if this
thing ever becomes a product, that's going to be the front line.

> > None of the people asking to do this or that to cygwin has offered to
> > pony up any money or time (except for one fellow who offered his help to
> > Colin Peters).  Given that, I think the response "then use VC++" is
> > quite a reasonable one.
> >
> Not everyone is experienced enough to be able to contribute in a
> meaningul manner. I thought that was obvious.

That's totally irrelevant; the point is that, if you don't like the
direction that cygnus is going, you can go out and *pay* for something
else.  Meanwhile, the rest of us who need and want a total GNU-like
environment because there *isn't any alternative* are rather pleased
that cygwin is focusing on that, thank you very much.

--
<J Q B>
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -