Subject: Re: Bug in od, cat, etc reading binary files
From: [email-masked] (Larry Hall)

27 Sep 1997 10:19:20 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]

At 09:41 AM 9/26/97 -0600, [email-masked] wrote:
>> >It seems to me that if one wants to port software into the NT environment
>> >then one has no choice but to run the normal way NT programs do (without
>> 
>> A. We are not porting to NT, we are porting to the cygwin32 API
>> B. Most Un*x tools expect Binary IO, mounting without -b will break many
configure scripts
>
>I have to agree with the original poster on this.  What good is the cygwin32
>API on NT if it is not compatible with the rest of NT?  If you are going to
>only use programs running in the cygwin32 world, then why not just run Linux
>instead and get better performance and better compatibility?  If you're
>running NT, it seems that you likely need it to run some other things that
>only run on NT, so if cygwin32 is to be useful, it should also be able to
>deal with files produced by or intended for these other programs.
>
>Sure, it may be a royal pain to have to deal with the compatibility problems,
>and that's probably where a lot of the ugliness of NT comes from, but I think
>that that's the reality of the NT world.  If you don't want to be compatible
>with the rest of the NT world, why try to run on NT in the first place?
>
>marcus hall

(I swore I was going to stay out of this!)

Marcus,

I don't think anyone will argue that having at least an option to get full
Windows platform compatibility is a desirable thing.  However, your 
implication that cygwin32 (or gnu-win32) is not useful without this option
is a bit too broad.  For the general reason that cygwin32 allows 
traditionally UNIX based programs to be ported quickly and easily to Windows
platforms, cygwin32 is useful to many people in many areas.  Tossing this
fact aside is close to insulting to all who create and work on cygwin32 and
those who have and are currently using it.  If Windows compatibility is 
what you need from a development environment, I suggest you use for now
ming32 or other commercial environments.  While I'm sure there will be 
something in cygwin32 in the future that will address your desire, Rome 
wasn't built in a day.  And since there are other environments out there 
that would address the concern you have, I personally think the initial
goal Cygnus targeted with this environment is the correct one, at least in 
regards to the market which desires to quickly and easily port software from
UNIX to Windows.  I think they have done allot to achieve that.  As always,
there is more to do.  However, while it may be useful to state particular
desires for enhancements and such, claiming that what is there now is not
useful is overstating it.  Opening up yet another debate about what makes a
useful environment for Windows is not relevant.  There are many out there.
If this one doesn't serve your purpose at the moment, try a different one
or make your own.

Larry Hall                              [email-masked]
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (781) 239-1053
8 Grove Street                          (781) 239-1655 - FAX
Wellesley, MA  02181                             

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".