Subject: Re: cygwin.dll
From: [email-masked] (Jim Balter)

16 Jan 1997 23:26:37 -0800
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
Original-To: "M.Carter" <[email-masked]>
Original-CC: [email-masked]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

M.Carter wrote:

> > Any university offers courses that will cover the tradeoffs between
> > dynamic and static libraries; it seems some readers of this group
> > could benefit from such an education.
> 
> Oops - I'm duly chastened. But I'd like to point out that commercial
> software for Win95 runs fairly smoothly, whereas stuff I get off the
> Internet usually requires the Devil's own cunning to get working.

I don't understand the connection or the point.  Commercial Win95
software often comes with great gobs of DLLs and other stuff placed
whoknowswhere, is not redistributable, and is produced by bunches of
programmers, managers, QA people, tech writers, et al. who are paid by
the often rather sizable fee they charge you for that software, and you
are lucky to ever actually talk to any of those people, and you
certainly won't be able patch the source code yourself.  OTOH, cygwin is
FREE and UNSUPPORTED; the small number of people who maintain it no
doubt have more important things to do, but they have put in a lot of
time to put this thing together nonetheless.

If you want a commercial unix shell, MKS and similar firms offer
such a thing.  If you want a commercial environment for porting
unix programs, similar to cygwin, there's datafocus' "NuTCracker",
which currently only runs on WinNT and requires *3* DLLs, and
carries a price tag that they don't mention on their web page, perhaps
because they don't want to scare people away.

The choice is yours.

--
<J Q B>
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".