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
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:10:32 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Windows .NET Server RC1 and cygwin not working together??
Message-ID: <20020823131032.GA17033@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020823023529 DOT GD13250 AT redhat DOT com> <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKCEDODEAA DOT g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKCEDODEAA.g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 01:05:44AM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 06:38:14PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> >Ajay Juneja wrote:
>> >>It appears that Windows .NET RC1 and Cygwin are not quite compatible.
>> >>Cygwin just starts and quickly dies with no error message in this new
>> >>version of windows.
>> >
>> >Windows isn't done until Cygwin won't run :-)
>>
>> That seems to be the case with Windows releases since W2K.
>>
>> cgf
>
>Don't put it past them for a *second*.  Now I'm not your typical "M$ hater" that
>thinks its "k3w1" to "dis" Microsoft at every opportunity; I've been to Hell
>(i.e. Windows Kernel Mode) and (barely) back, and I can say without equivocation
>that such freakshows have only two causes:
>
>1.  Complete incompetence.
>2.  Intentional nefarious designs.
>
>We know #1 is not true about MS; when they want to, they can get things right
>(or thereabouts).  And we know that Unix-on-Windows is not percieved as
>conducive to whatever MS's "Final Solution" plans are; if it were, Window's
>"POSIX subsystem" would be more than a joke.  QED, we are left with #2.

I think it's more that cygwin tries to do things with the Windows API
that are clearly undocumented and boundary conditions.  For instance,
there is no guarantee that fork() should work correctly given the magic
(aka kludge) involved.  So, it is within Microsoft's rights to change
whatever they want in this regard and Cygwin just has to play catchup;
assuming it's possible to do so.

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/