Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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: <3F1827A5.3000003@attglobal.net> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:00:21 -0700 From: Doug VanLeuven User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-list Subject: Re: Cygwin vs: Windoze services for Unix References: <3F16A4E9 DOT 7000000 AT citlink DOT net> In-Reply-To: <3F16A4E9.7000000@citlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-MailScanner: Found to be clean The interix subsystem isn't as flexible as cygwin IMHO. The useful bits are the NFS utilities which do not have source & password synchronization which has source for *nix (not GPL). terry wrote: > I just received an evaluation copy with Linux Magazine as was > wondering if this is a direct 'competitive' product to Cygwin, and if > so, what are the significant functional differences (other than the > obvious - not being open source / free software and Cygwin being > higher quality, of course ;>). -- Doug VanLeuven -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/