Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:09:02 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: newbie's gripe with NT/2K/XP integration Message-ID: <20020819170902.GC19239@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:13:01AM -0500, Michael Hoffman wrote: >On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Gen Zhang wrote: >>my question is why does cygwin support the technologically challenged >>platforms 9x/ME and ruining what could be much better support for the >>NT series. > >The reason the developers don't gratuitously break Cygwin for thousands >of users is because they're mean. At least that's what I've always >figured. Correct me if I'm wrong. You're 100% correct. Just basic meanness. Where's my dog? I need to kick something. >>for example, the interface with security under 9x is actually >>non-existent anyway and removing support for 9x would make cygwin code >>smaller and neater (i'm an advocate of _very_ elegant coding), not to >>mention faster and more secure (what do you know, i mentioned them >>anyway :). > >Why don't you do it and report back to the list on the speed gains? Wonderful suggestion. cgf -- 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/