Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Wed, 8 Aug 2001 04:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Matt <matt AT use DOT net>
X-Sender:	<matt AT cesium DOT clock DOT org>
To:	<cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Windows 95 working again?
In-Reply-To:	<20010804193127.A5171@redhat.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.NEB.4.30.0108080433030.4299-100000@cesium.clock.org>
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I checked in some patches to get Windows 9x working again.  I tried hard
> for two weeks or more to come up with a plan for Windows 9x that didn't
> require double copying of the Cygwin heap but, alas, I just couldn't do
> it.
>
> Windows 95 seems carefully designed to give the illusion of functionality
> while styming real programming at every step.
>
> I couldn't duplicate the reported problem of running rsync in /bin/sh so
> I don't know if this is fixed or not.  Otherwise, I think that cygwin
> should be functional again.
>
> If we can fix the autoconf bug, I'd like to make a release.

I can do some testing in win98 when I get back from europe.

Is win98 more functional than win95 in the respects you mention?

--
http://www.clock.org/~matt

- Raw text -