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

29 Sep 1997 18:58:32 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain
To: [email-masked]

>Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:58:13 -0400
>To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>From: Larry Hall <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: Bug in od, cat, etc reading binary files
>
>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                             
>
>-

Bravo!

-        \\||//
---o0O0--Earnie--0O0o----
[email-masked]
------ooo0O--O0ooo-------

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".