Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3C0C02D2.65154394@ece.gatech.edu>
Date:	Mon, 03 Dec 2001 17:55:14 -0500
From:	Charles Wilson <cwilson AT ece DOT gatech DOT edu>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.8 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Tim Prince <tprince AT computer DOT org>
CC:	Basant Kukreja <Basant DOT Kukreja AT oracle DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: XP 64 bit : 32 bit emulation : fork problem : Cygwin 1.3.5
References:	<3C0BDA7F DOT 9610AAC3 AT oracle DOT com> <011101c17c42$8db80e20$7add18ac AT amr DOT corp DOT intel DOT com>
X-Virus-Scanned:	by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/)

Tim Prince wrote:
> 
> The most recent success story I have heard, with a modified cygwin1.dll (not
> supported on this list) was with XP Server build 3505.   My last success
> with a Pro build was with build 2446.  These builds have changed continually
> in the details relevant to cygwin, which must be one of the strategies
> employed by Microsoft to discourage use of cygwin.

Maybe I'm begin naive, but I don't think MS gives a rat's #!&# about
cygwin -- certainly not enough to deliberately modify things just to
screw us up.  I mean, c'mon, we're not Lotus...

fork/exec is pretty hard to get "right" -- even when you throw thousands
of code monkeys at the problem.  I'm not surprised that things are
fluid... 

--Chuck

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -