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
Message-ID: <3B6F8F1B.5B0E130E@sibbald.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 08:47:55 +0200
From: Kern Sibbald <kern AT sibbald DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jonadab AT bright DOT net
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin version 1.3.2
References: <3B6F1780 DOT 3920 DOT D0BF16 AT localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

If Cygwin on WinNT is a different platform from Win9x,
why don't you distribute two copies of the binaries?

Linux whether it runs RedHat, SuSE, or Slackware flavors
are all called Linux.

Linux when it runs on IBM hardware on an s390 as
a VM is called Linux.

For Cygwin, the WinNT/Win98 issue is much more analogous
to the hardware (i.e. Intel vs s390)
than it is to the Operating System Name.

Please read my request carefully; you will see that I would
have added more information not less (Win). It is just a matter
of rearranging it. I suspect you have never been confronted
with porting your software to a different platform, so 
it might be hard to appreciate the difficulties this 
extra information (in the place it currently appears) creates.

This isn't worth discussing any more. I see we have different
views on it, which is fine.  I will program around the
complexities.


Best regards,

Kern

Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> 
> # but cygwin+nt _is_ a different platform from cygwin+w9x.
> 
> I would say that cygwin on Windows is more different from
> cygwin on NT than FreeBSD is from NetBSD.  Yet the various
> flavours of BSD distinguish themselves in that field; they
> do not just say "BSD" and put the qualifiers off someplace
> else.
> 
> OTOH, I would think that cygwin on Windows 98 SE is for
> all practical purposes identical to cygwin on Windows
> 95 OSR2, and I don't know what differences there may
> be with XP.
> 
> I *think* I agree with the sentiment that too much
> information is better than too little.  Up to a point.
> 
> -- jonadab

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/