From: earnie_boyd AT hotmail DOT com (Earnie Boyd) Subject: Re: Bug in od, cat, etc reading binary files 29 Sep 1997 18:58:32 -0700 Message-ID: <19970930014746.21152.qmail.cygnus.gnu-win32@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain To: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com >Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:58:13 -0400 >To: marcus AT bighorn DOT dr DOT lucent DOT com, gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com >From: Larry Hall >Subject: Re: Bug in od, cat, etc reading binary files > >At 09:41 AM 9/26/97 -0600, marcus AT bighorn DOT dr DOT lucent DOT com wrote: >>> >It seems to me that if one wants to port software into the NT environment >>> >then one has no choice but to run the normal way NT programs do (without >>> >>> A. We are not porting to NT, we are porting to the cygwin32 API >>> B. Most Un*x tools expect Binary IO, mounting without -b will break many >configure scripts >> >>I have to agree with the original poster on this. What good is the cygwin32 >>API on NT if it is not compatible with the rest of NT? If you are going to >>only use programs running in the cygwin32 world, then why not just run Linux >>instead and get better performance and better compatibility? If you're >>running NT, it seems that you likely need it to run some other things that >>only run on NT, so if cygwin32 is to be useful, it should also be able to >>deal with files produced by or intended for these other programs. >> >>Sure, it may be a royal pain to have to deal with the compatibility problems, >>and that's probably where a lot of the ugliness of NT comes from, but I think >>that that's the reality of the NT world. If you don't want to be compatible >>with the rest of the NT world, why try to run on NT in the first place? >> >>marcus hall > >(I swore I was going to stay out of this!) > >Marcus, > >I don't think anyone will argue that having at least an option to get full >Windows platform compatibility is a desirable thing. However, your >implication that cygwin32 (or gnu-win32) is not useful without this option >is a bit too broad. For the general reason that cygwin32 allows >traditionally UNIX based programs to be ported quickly and easily to Windows >platforms, cygwin32 is useful to many people in many areas. Tossing this >fact aside is close to insulting to all who create and work on cygwin32 and >those who have and are currently using it. If Windows compatibility is >what you need from a development environment, I suggest you use for now >ming32 or other commercial environments. While I'm sure there will be >something in cygwin32 in the future that will address your desire, Rome >wasn't built in a day. And since there are other environments out there >that would address the concern you have, I personally think the initial >goal Cygnus targeted with this environment is the correct one, at least in >regards to the market which desires to quickly and easily port software from >UNIX to Windows. I think they have done allot to achieve that. As always, >there is more to do. However, while it may be useful to state particular >desires for enhancements and such, claiming that what is there now is not >useful is overstating it. Opening up yet another debate about what makes a >useful environment for Windows is not relevant. There are many out there. >If this one doesn't serve your purpose at the moment, try a different one >or make your own. > >Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com >RFK Partners, Inc. (781) 239-1053 >8 Grove Street (781) 239-1655 - FAX >Wellesley, MA 02181 > >- Bravo! - \\||// ---o0O0--Earnie--0O0o---- -earnie_boyd AT hotmail DOT com- ------ooo0O--O0ooo------- ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - 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".