Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/03/14/04:53:09
I'd be interested in comparisons not just of raw performance, but also
other aspects, e.g. security, POSIX conformance, ways of dealing with
file modes, drive letters, links, forking, inter-process communication,
wealth of contributions, size of community, business model, etc. etc.
Cygwin and the applications ported to cygwin are alternatives to running
a *nix box, and so are the other "UNIX on a Windows box" systems.
Studying alternatives can help clarifying the design goals; i.e., which
is most important, interoperating with native applications, or easy port
of *nix applications? Open source, or M$ brand name?
Interix, BTW, was recently acquired by Microsoft; Interix 2.2 was
released only a week ago. The product now incorporates former Interix
Workstation Lite, Interix SDK and Interix Server Lite - 25 user telnet,
but excludes the X server, at $129 a seat. You might as well get used to
it; Microsoft wants to have a piece of the action as well as defend the
position on the desktop. More info at
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu.
Kind regards
Peter Ring
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey Noer [mailto:noer AT cygnus DOT com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 3:09 AM
To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Cygwin performance (was ÆANNÅ PW32 the...)
<snip>
Have people run any benchmarks comparing Cygwin, Uwin, NuTcracker,
Interix, anything else out there?
<snip>
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -