X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org X-Yahoo-SMTP: Uu383n6swBCEN1G9up0WSnxbvN8fCPmk Message-ID: <4C87DA5D.2070204@cygwin.com> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:47:57 -0400 From: "Larry Hall \(Cygwin\)" Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090320 Remi/2.0.0.21-1.fc8.remi Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Windows-style pathname does not work as command - why? References: <4C7FE2C2.8060104@fgm.com> <4C7FE938.6060806@redhat.com> <20100902211830.GC527@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4C87B2A3.1050702@fgm.com> <4C87BB59.1020808@cygwin.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 On 9/8/2010 1:24 PM, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 8 September 2010 17:35, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >>> Isn't the whole reason for Cygwin actually to enable doing Unixy things >>> in Windows (that is, providing Windows/Unix interoperablity? >> >> No, that's not a key goal. From the Cygwin main web page: >> >> Cygwin is a Linux-like environment for Windows > > Well, I (and my employer) would not be using Cygwin if it wasn't for > the Windows integration, in particular the ability to plug POSIX and > Windows programs together. > > If I just wanted to run Linux software on Windows, I'd use a virtual > machine or coLinux. While Cygwin's lower resource usage is nice to > have, that's easily outweighed by the inevitable compatibility and > performance drawbacks that come with building on top of Win32. There are allot of different reasons people choose to use Cygwin. However, as a product (and I'm not suggesting anything commercially motivated here when using that term), it has some key design goals. They are the ones I quoted from the main page on the Cygwin web site. There are others that are secondary goals. Interoperability is certainly one. But Windows/DOS-style path support is not the "whole reason" for Cygwin as the OP suggested. It is, rather, a case where the primary goals of Linux compatibility require a choice to be made and in this case the choice is POSIX-style paths trump Windows/DOS-style paths anywhere the support cost is too high for the latter. The general argument of Windows interoperability in Cygwin has been discussed on the list in the past. I'm not trying to re-open those threads or start a new flame war on the subject. I'm only trying to correct a misconception of the OP with regards to accepted path syntax. I hope that's clear now. -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- 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