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: <20020922035010.97686.qmail@web21009.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 20:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nicholas Wourms <nwourms AT yahoo DOT com>
Subject: Re: ntsec vs ntea
To: Matt Swift <swift AT alum DOT mit DOT edu>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
In-Reply-To: <m265wyoguv.fsf@swift.shore.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


--- Matt Swift <swift AT alum DOT mit DOT edu> wrote:
> 
> I have been using Cygwin with a value CYGWIN="ntsec ntea binmode
> tty"
> for a long time under Win2k and WinXP with NTFS hard drives.  On
> rereading the documentation, it seems to me that the "ntea" and
> "ntsec" values select different solutions to the same problem, and
> that there is no reason to set both.  Is this a correct
> interpretation?  Which method is used when both flags are set? 
> Which
> is the best one to use?  If I switch to using just one of them,
> will I
> encounter any problems due to having used the other?

You only need ntea if your hdd's are FAT, otherwise ntsec is quite
sufficient for your needs.  I have no idea what happens when you set
both flags on NTFS, other then waste space.

Cheers,
Nicholas

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

--
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/