Subject: Re: What about RSXNT instead of cygwin32???
From: [email-masked] (Peter Dalgaard BSA)

14 Oct 1997 10:05:54 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

Bernd Schilpp <[email-masked]> writes:

> Now I found
> RSXNT-Compiler(ftp://ftp.uni-bielefeld.de/pub/systems/msdos/misc/
> or http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/users/williams/).
> The list of bugs and missing features is very short. The Libaries are
> threadsave and it seems to work quite good.
> Does anybody know the big difference to cygwin32 or is anybody
> experienced with RSXNT ? Are any problems known ?
> Please let me know your opinion.

Yes, I've tried that and it certainly seems to be a class act,
although not as ambitious as cygwin32. The most obvious difference is
that there are no Unix utilities beyond 'make' coming with it. In
particular, there's no shell, so configure scripts can't work. In
contrast, cygwin32 is trying to reach a state where you can take Unix
sources and just type "./configure; make". 

On the other hand, RSXNT includes a resource compiler and working
samples of several native win32 applications, which makes it
attractive for purely windows-based programs. For people coming from a
Unix background, I think it can quite easily beat all of the
commercial Win32 C compilers.

Also, even though RSXNT implements fork() and some other Unix calls, I
bet that there are things that you can't do (not that I've checked,
but e.g. it took a while for cygwin32 to figure out how to do select()
on a mixture of files, pipes and sockets, so I wouldn't expect to find
it in RSXNT).

-- 
   O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             Blegdamsvej 3  
  c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     2200 Cph. N   
 (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark      Ph: (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - ([email-masked])             FAX: (+45) 35327907
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".