From: jan AT digicash DOT com (Jan Nieuwenhuizen) Subject: Re: OpenNT & GNU-Win32 Comparison? 22 Jul 1997 01:48:59 -0700 Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <199707220820.KAA19574.cygnus.gnu-win32@digicash.com> Original-To: Andreas Bischoff Original-cc: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jul 1997 16:48:04 PDT." <199707212348 DOT QAA00805 AT ws4 DOT ise DOT com> Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com On Monday, 21 July 1997, Andreas Bischoff writes: > > Has anyone done any comparison between OpenNT by Softway and GNU-Win32? If > > you know any information or have done a comparison, please let me know the > > result. It seems that they are competing products. Of course, OpenNT is a > > commercial product which means it costs money. However, I believe that > > OpenNT has a better develop environment with a more complete set of tools. > > This is what I understand base on the information on the web. If you know > > anything more or use it before, please let me know. Thank you in advance. > > > > --Peter > > > > - > > I didn't do a highly sophisticated comparison, but did check out the > 30 day demo. > > Turned out that I couldn't do much with it. > OpenNT requires that you have MSVC installed and does not support C++ > so far. Also, I need Fortran, which is not supported. > > I've tried to compile a couple of standard utilities, started with tcl, > but the autoconfigure didn't work out. > > Tried also to get gcc/g++ compiled but without much luck, at which point > I didn't spend any more time with it. O, too bad. You can't trust the adds, so everyone will have to see for perself? > Also, the bundled X server is the one from Netmanage, which didn't impress me > either. I'm looking for an X server too, but there are so many. Some popular ones are bundled with nfs support and are pretty expensive. Could you name a (few) X servers you _are_ impressed with? > The usage of MSVC creates a mess in my opinion. > They tried to create a wrapper, which converts unix like path names to > windoze like ones. At least in my case this didn't seem to work very well. > > I still think the idea of having a working POSIX subsytem is a good one > but I'd rather wait for the next release. > Are you suggesting microsoft would put any extra effort into their broken posix subsystem? All unix on nt software simply(?) translates calls to the windows32 api, is it not? > Regards, > > Andreas greetings, jan. Jan Nieuwenhuizen http://www.digicash.com/~jan - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".