Mail Archives: cygwin/2009/07/02/14:52:31
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 02:10:27PM -0400, Edward Lam wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 08:51:47AM -0400, Edward Lam wrote:
>>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>And for those who want to wail about this, take a look at the various
>>>>"Why is Cygwin so slow????" threads that have been here in the last
>>>>month. Every special case accommodation we make to allow MS-DOSisms to
>>>>work seamlessly adds code to Cygwin and cause corresponding slowness
>>>>for everything.
>>>
>>>That's an interesting view. So are you saying that this is why MINGW
>>>is faster?
>>
>>No, they just aren't as mean as we are. We like to make things
>>purposely slow because then people suffer.
>
>I asked what I thought was a sensible question for someone who doesn't
>know the internal workings of cygwin/mingw. It wasn't meant as a flame
>bait. I was just interested in what trade-offs mingw might be making
>for its speed.
I guess I forgot the reference:
http://cygwin.com/acronyms/#WJM
The answer to your question is easily discernible just by reading the
respective web pages to the two projects. The important word to find on
the Cygwin web page is "emulation". On the MinGW web page, the word to
scan for would be "native" (or maybe "minimal").
This has been discussed multiple times in this very mailing list, even
as recently as a couple of days ago.
If you want more of a clue, look at the number of linux packages that
Cygwin offers versus the number that MinGW provides. Do you see a
disparity? Why do you think that is? Hmm. Maybe the MinGW project
is mean too.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -