X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_50,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4DE815C3.2060600@tlinx.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:59:15 -0700
From: Linda Walsh <cygwin AT tlinx DOT org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "cygwin AT cygwin DOT com" <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: Re: Why does windows have such probs with dynamically loaded libs?
References: <loom DOT 20110529T133128-564 AT post DOT gmane DOT org>	<20110529233841 DOT GC5283 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>	<loom DOT 20110530T093057-556 AT post DOT gmane DOT org>	<20110530174649 DOT GB14225 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>	<4DE5773D DOT 9040008 AT tlinx DOT org>	<4DE579AC DOT 1040007 AT redhat DOT com>	<4DE58AE3 DOT 904 AT tlinx DOT org> <BANLkTik0Bp0PAiCJS0ukT5NucR6R9=OLEw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTik0Bp0PAiCJS0ukT5NucR6R9=OLEw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Stationery: 0.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

Csaba Raduly wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Linda Walsh  wrote:
> 
>>        Hmmm...I wonder...do you know if Interix setups COW pages on fork?
>> If so, why in the heck would it perform so much more slowly than cygwin
>> when running the same tasks (shell scripts and such that do lots of little
>> forks)....  its performance was pretty bad next to cygwin, though that was
>> under XP, and several years back that I tested, so it may have changed).
> 
> Last year I investigated Services For Unix on Vista and found it to be
> roughly on par with Cygwin in terms if compilation time of a complex
> C++ project.
----
	But that would be more compute bound where I'd expect
them to be more equal.

  I was using a shell script that made many small util tr/cat/sed/...etc)
calls, and thus would have 'banged' on process forking, proportionately
more, than cpu-usage.  I find C and C++ compilations (even though they can
take many processes), spend most of their time in compilation, which I'd
expect to be near identical ( barring differences in compiler's used to
compile the tools...etc)....


>> Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Put yourself in Microsoft's shoes - why would you want to make it easier
>>> for free software
> 
> If they wanted that, they would surely decide to enhance Windows
> Services For Unix; after all they paid good money for the company that
> made Interix.
> But, since SFU doesn't even have a proper poll(2) implementation, I'm
> not holding my breath.
----
   Depends on the costs/benefits.  They may have paid Interix to develop
it, but I would wager it's not used nearly as much as cygwin, even in the
corporate world.  It might be easer from MS's perspective to give 
cygwin more access to docs to cygwin could better integrate, than to 
dump development money into the SFU product if MS's Corp customers are
already relying more on Cygwin.   It could easily be seen as fiscal 
mismanagement to be so wasteful and companies have been sued by stock
holders for being fiscally irresponsible.

But some stockholder with some legal-backbone would have to care enough
to push buttons and in the legal arena, comment sense and truth are
easily over-ridden by legal process and bovine-excrement.
Linda



--
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