Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/07/10/02:22:33
On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:35:51PM -0400, Max wrote:
>The only thing that looks remotely interesting is the POSIX compliant
>subsystem, which Cygwin is developing at, in my opinion, a very fast
>rate ... in my opinion .. I think Cygwin will be much more
>feature-rich and stable than SFU will ever be .... I tried an early
>version of the UNIX services for Windows on NT 4 ... and they were
>awful ... that same year there was a port of IE 4 for Solaris ...
>awful as well!
Thanks for the compliment but, just to be clear, a POSIX compliant
subsystem stands a better chance of being more feature rich and
(especially) faster than cygwin. A subsystem has access to more
low level features of the kernel. So it can do things like properly
fork or properly handle a case sensitive file system.
I never actually heard anyone say that Interix was bad before. I always
thought it was probably a pretty good product. The guys working on
it are certainly sharp.
Hmm. I have an unopened copy of Interix from a couple of years ago
sitting on my desk. I wonder if Microsoft will upgrade me.
cgf
--
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 -