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 Reply-To: Cygwin List Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.0.20040119153803.039d7448@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:42:02 -0500 To: Dax Kelson , cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Larry Hall Subject: Re: Cygwin without Win32 In-Reply-To: <1074544647.2499.22.camel@mentor.gurulabs.com> References: <1074544647 DOT 2499 DOT 22 DOT camel AT mentor DOT gurulabs DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:37 PM 1/19/2004, Dax Kelson you wrote: >The newly released Microsoft Services For Unix (SFU v3.5) includes a new >"highly tuned" POSIX subsystem. MS says that UNIX apps using the POSIX >subsystem are within 10% performance of Windows apps using the Win32 >subsystem. The security models also work together so that chmod/chown/su >and friends all work properly. It would be nice to see an implementation >of setfacl and getfacl. > >Would there be any benefit to porting Cygwin to sit directly on top the >POSIX subsystem instead of going through the Win32 subsystem? > >kernel <-> POSIX <-> cygwin (bash, et al) > >instead of > >kernel <-> WIN32 <-> cygwin.dll <-> cygwin (bash, et al) > >Just curious. Not if one wants to be able to write programs that use Win32 functionality and Windows < NT. -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 -- 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/