X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:20:58 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin instabilities Message-ID: <20100913192058.GA26408@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:52:55PM -0300, Ramiro Polla wrote: >On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Al wrote: >> Others report that they don't use Cygwin because of instablilities, >> especially in the server context. > >I've also been having "instabilities" in my "server context" (Windows >Server 2008 R2), but I have a few more concrete details: Ok. Two reports of "instabilities". And what does that show? Here are the OP's original questions: What are the reasons? Dave theorized about one. Will this be better with Windows 7? No. Can Cygwin become "server stable"? It depends on what is meant by "become". If it means will there be a concerted effort to "harden" Cygwin for a server then the answer is likely "not unless someone pays for it." That points back to paying Red Hat for support. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple