Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Reply-To: <crippel AT primenet DOT com>
From: "Christoph Rippel" <crippel AT primenet DOT com>
To: "Cygwin" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: ksh93? -- also u/win question
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 02:56:17 -0800
Message-ID: <MGEAJFIIJOCJJJKGKGIJOEGLCNAA.crippel@primenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.96.1010207233611.5245D-100000@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
> [mailto:cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com]On Behalf Of Mumit Khan
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 10:06 PM
> To: Cygwin
> Subject: Re: ksh93? -- also u/win question
> 
> 
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
> > >I'm still working on it.  I sort of lost interest though, now that zsh runs
> > >so smoothly under cygwin (no more status access violations, yay!).
> 
> Regarding ksh93, it's actually not that hard to port to Cygwin, once you 
> figure out AT&T's build system. I've been using AT&T sources for many 
> years, since the initial days of cfront, so it doesn't look that foreign 
> to me. I've been way too busy with real life, and just haven't had the
> time to tweak the various pieces yet (pathname handling, enhanced spawnv*
> style api for cygwin, without using UWIN specific code, to speed things up,
> etc). My shell scripts run under vendor ksh or bash, so I personally don't 
> need it as much. 
> 
> > Can you give an example of some of the clever ideas in uwin?  I know that
> > they have some sort of setuid daemon or something like that but it has been
> > a while since I really investigated U/WIN.
> 
> Here's my take on this, and it's quite simple. A few years ago, when you
> wanted Unix on PC with the feel of Unix, you had 3 or 4 choices, and the
> prominent ones were Softway/Interix/now-Microsoft (which uses POSIX
> subsystem, so different beast altogether), Cygwin and UWIN. UWIN provided
> almost a real Unix feel right after you installed it, and that made a lot
> of users feel more comfortable than the old pre v1.0 Cygwin layout scheme.
> It also installed things like inetd etc right off the bat, and it just
> made things easier. There were also little things like handling of hard
> links and a few others.
> 
> In terms of technology, UWIN's process management was certainly much
> faster (have not benchmarked against any recent Cygwin versions, so
> please don't ask me how it compares now), and I/O subsystem using sfio
> is *much* better. The system runtime uses AST library, which is also
> very well done. Newlib is perhaps a good choice for an embedded system,
> and while it's getting better, it still lacks of lot of features of a
> modern hosted C runtime. The newlib math library is, ah how should I put 
> it, not that great. UWIN has the advantage of leveraging MSVC runtime, 
> which has a decent fp math library.

Don't know if this is relevant but it is possible to compile
sfio-2000 under cygwin (not the threaded version of course) 
and almost all of the sfio tests actually succeeded (a couple
of month ago). The license is BSD style if I remember correctly.
The url is  www.research.att.com/sw/tools/sfio .

 [..]

Christoph
 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple