Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: <38B6CB5A.8AA07C0D@sigma6.com> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 13:35:06 -0500 From: Jeff Sturm Organization: AppNet X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cygnus - Admin CC: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: stupid question?? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cygnus - Admin wrote: > > Ok, I have to take issue with something here. For a few weeks now I've > been skimming the posts about all these ports to cygwin > with NT/95/98/whatever..inetd, etc, etc.. > And my question is, WHY? If you want all these unix programs, why not just > use unix? Everybody has their own reasons, as I am sure you are discovering. Ours are twofold: I need a build environment on NT that understands our bash scripts, makefiles, etc. While I can cross-compile everything, sometimes it's just nice to build/debug/run on one host. We also rely on Cygwin for remote administration. We manage several NT servers that are physically remote to us. NT has dismal remote administration tools (i.e., none), so Cygwin/inetd/telnetd has saved our butts many times over. -- Jeff Sturm jsturm AT sigma6 DOT com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com