Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/01/19/23:33:37
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:21:41PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:36:42PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:12:25PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>There would certainly be a real detriment in the fact that cygwin would
>>>>stop working for Windows 95/98/Me. If we could focus just on NT class
>>>>systems, there is all sorts of improvements that we could make. I
>>>>don't think that all of the people using those systems would be too
>>>>happy with us, though, as much as I'd like to ditch them.
>>>
>>>Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are
>>>compared with NT and greater?
>>
>>The fact that Pierre Humblet uses Windows Me is reason enough for me to
>>keep it around. I wouldn't want to lose his contributions to the
>>project and, perhaps more importantly, his ability to tolerate me when
>>I get crabby.
>
>Thanks a lot, Chris. But according to
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/productinfo/sysreqs/default.asp it
>won't work on NT4 and Windows XP Home Edition either. That increases
>the user population.
Wow. XP home? That's interesting. Sounds like Cygwin still has a
market.
>Now that 1.5.6 is out, I was just thinking that I should send you a
>refreshed patch for "[Patch]: Improving tty_list security (part 1).".
>Are you ready for that?
Not quite. I'm still dealing with fallout from all of the 1.5.6 changes.
I've got two show stoppers so far. One is the problem with bash hanging
and the other is the vim SEGV. I think I've figured out both of them,
though.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -