Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/03/27/01:42:09
>
> OK. Whatever those are.
>
> I'm guessing the MS in MSFT is Microsoft. I don't know what the FT
part is.
Stock symbol.. sorry.
> Building from Cygwin while targeting native Windows APIs would
> presumably be feasible using MinGW and / or "-mno-cygwin", but the
> result would presumably function just as Mozilla compiled with Visual
> Studio.
>
>
>> 2. Having a complex GUI app like Mozilla ported to Cygwin could
>> prove to be a stick in which to measure and compare the over
>> all efficiency and performance of Cygwin. If the "native"
>> Mozilla and the Cygwin version performed reasonably the same,
>> then we would know that Cygwin is on track. If the Cygwin
>> version lagged, it would set concrete goals for the
>> Cygwin/XFree team.
>
>
> That's not going to happen any time soon. XFree86/Cygwin has no graphics
> acceleration. Apart from that, little if anything runs as fast through
> Cygwin as it does on the Win32 API even if GUI operation is ignored or
> irrelevant.
>
> I don't mean this as a criticism, but just a fact. I imagine the biggest
> win would be by getting some graphics acceleration in XFree86.
Performance was just an example.
The big issue, I guess, is just seeing what is broke. If Mozilla builds
and runs super slow, that is still a big win..
Off the top of anyone's head, is there any major reason why it should not
build?
Functionality, it seems, has been the priority over speed in Cygwin
land. So just making Mozilla function under Cygwin would be a good
thing..
Having Mozilla itself running under Cygwin might not be useful
to a lot of people but the fixes that Cygwin might have to go
through to make this happen could pave the way for other X apps
that come later.
<<SNIP>>
>> Finally.. Every major porting effort that Cygwin goes to does not
>> kill or hurt Cygwin, it makes it stronger and more functional.
>
>
> Unquantifiable.
>
> It's clear that bringing otherwise unavailable software to Windows via
> Cygwin is an unqualified win.
>
> However, doing so for software already available on Windows, especially
> when it's not software that integrates with other Cygwin components,
> adds rather less. Take Perl, for example. There's a native Windows port
> and a Cygwin port. But Cygwin Perl is still a win because any Perl
> program can be run in a context of close interaction (pipelines,
> scripts, uniform pathname treatment, etc.) with other Cygwin programs.
>
> From this perspective, I'd say Cygwin Mozilla would be a rather small
> win. GUI-intensive, non-scriptable applications for X (which does not
> itself run unless the Windows GUI system is running beneath it) add
> rather little when those applications are already available as native
> Windows programs.
This might be a poor example but the reason I would, at least, like
to try Mozilla under Cygwin is the same reason I use Emacs and
Apache under Cygwin. The native versions might perform better but
I like the integration of the Cygwin ports.
Anyway, I am going to try it this weekend. Lets hope for the best.
--
<march>
Michael F. March ----- march AT indirect DOT com
Ph: (602)410-1780 ---- Fax: (602)296-0400
P.O. Box 2254 ---- Phoenix, AZ 85002-2254
"Seriously" - HSR
--
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 -