Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Message-ID: <3C0C02D2.65154394@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 17:55:14 -0500 From: Charles Wilson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.8 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Prince CC: Basant Kukreja , cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: XP 64 bit : 32 bit emulation : fork problem : Cygwin 1.3.5 References: <3C0BDA7F.9610AAC3@oracle.com> <011101c17c42$8db80e20$7add18ac@amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Tim Prince wrote: > > The most recent success story I have heard, with a modified cygwin1.dll (not > supported on this list) was with XP Server build 3505. My last success > with a Pro build was with build 2446. These builds have changed continually > in the details relevant to cygwin, which must be one of the strategies > employed by Microsoft to discourage use of cygwin. Maybe I'm begin naive, but I don't think MS gives a rat's #!&# about cygwin -- certainly not enough to deliberately modify things just to screw us up. I mean, c'mon, we're not Lotus... fork/exec is pretty hard to get "right" -- even when you throw thousands of code monkeys at the problem. I'm not surprised that things are fluid... --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/