Message-ID: <4A4CF813.4090300@sidefx.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:10:27 -0400
From: Edward Lam <edward@sidefx.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] [1.7] Updated [security]: bash-3.2.49-23
References: <announce.4A4C18B6.4000505@byu.net>  <55392.99.237.216.211.1246503158.squirrel@www.sidefx.com>  <4A4C238B.8070804@byu.net>  <20090702031625.GA23085@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>  <4A4CAD63.50101@sidefx.com> <20090702174647.GE9839@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
In-Reply-To: <20090702174647.GE9839@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 08:51:47AM -0400, Edward Lam wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> And for those who want to wail about this, take a look at the various
>>> "Why is Cygwin so slow????" threads that have been here in the last
>>> month.  Every special case accommodation we make to allow MS-DOSisms to
>>> work seamlessly adds code to Cygwin and cause corresponding slowness
>>> for everything.
 >>
>> That's an interesting view.  So are you saying that this is why MINGW
>> is faster?
> 
> No, they just aren't as mean as we are.  We like to make things
> purposely slow because then people suffer.

I asked what I thought was a sensible question for someone who doesn't 
know the internal workings of cygwin/mingw. It wasn't meant as a flame 
bait. I was just interested in what trade-offs mingw might be making for 
its speed.

-Edward

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple