Subject: Re: cygwin on 95 slower than NT
From: Chris Faylor <[email-masked]>
To: Paul Sokolovsky <[email-masked]>
Cc: Chris Faylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:40:45 -0500

On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 02:15:20PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>>>>>It's known issue of Cygwin (and other POSIX layers, e.g.  UWIN).  They
>>>>>all by some reason (probably because they themselves were developed on
>>>>>NT, without enough attention to other Win32 systems) count Win9x as
>>>>>'degraded mode'.
>
>>>failed achieving objectives of my thesis! For some unknown reason
>>>stupid thing didn't want to work badly - it did screen output quite
>>>fast, process files fast also and didn't corrupt them trying to cut
>>>\r\n to \n or vice-versa. But don't hold breath, story has happy end:
>>>I was granted my Master degree.
>
>CF> If you have this superior tool available to you, one would have to
>CF> wonder why you aren't using it.
>
>    Because it's not yet as complete as cygwin. But I'm slowly
>working on it.

Good luck.

>CF> Again, feel free to provide a patch.
>
>    At the spring, here was the discussion why cygwin doesn't get as
>much contributions as it really worth. I remember some guy told that
>he disagreed with design principles and that - pitifully - made him
>start own scratch instead of more deserving way of helping improving
>what already was.

I don't remember anyone disagreeing with design principles but I'm
always open to talking about things like that, as is DJ (and Mumit, and
Earnie, and Corinna, and Sergey, and Egor).  Are you saying that you
won't be providing any help to the project (other than the usual "I
don't see why you don't just..." comments) because you saw some guy
complaining that he didn't like cygwin's design six months ago?

Ok.  That's fine.  I won't be responding to this thread again.  I
think we've exhausted the potential for any further useful information
here.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]