Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <911C684A29ACD311921800508B7293BA037D315F@cnmail>
From: Mark Bradshaw <bradshaw AT staff DOT crosswalk DOT com>
To: "'cygwin AT cygwin DOT com'" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: RE: The Empire Strikes Back...sorta
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 14:11:03 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

When I saw SFU 3 come out I went ahead and grabbed a copy.  It's includes
some nice packages to start with, but it's much thinner than the cygwin
selection.  More of a do-it-yourself kit if you want more than the password
synchronization, nfs, whatever that's included.  It uses an old version of
gcc, but other than that it was decent overall.  It's my understanding that
3 is a major departure from older versions, so you can't really go off old
impressions.

Out of about 15 packages that I downloaded and compiled about 5-7 needed
tweaking to compile.  Only OpenSSH required much time to get working.

So, overall, it looks interesting.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf AT redhat DOT com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:22 AM
> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: The Empire Strikes Back...sorta
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 05:35:51PM -0400, Max wrote:
> >The only thing that looks remotely interesting is the POSIX compliant
> >subsystem, which Cygwin is developing at, in my opinion, a very fast
> >rate ...  in my opinion ..  I think Cygwin will be much more
> >feature-rich and stable than SFU will ever be ....  I tried an early
> >version of the UNIX services for Windows on NT 4 ...  and they were
> >awful ...  that same year there was a port of IE 4 for Solaris ...
> >awful as well!
> 
> Thanks for the compliment but, just to be clear, a POSIX compliant
> subsystem stands a better chance of being more feature rich and
> (especially) faster than cygwin.  A subsystem has access to more
> low level features of the kernel.  So it can do things like properly
> fork or properly handle a case sensitive file system.
> 
> I never actually heard anyone say that Interix was bad 
> before.  I always
> thought it was probably a pretty good product.  The guys working on
> it are certainly sharp.
> 
> Hmm.  I have an unopened copy of Interix from a couple of years ago
> sitting on my desk.  I wonder if Microsoft will upgrade me.
> 
> cgf
> 
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/