Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 04:34:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: Windows 95 working again? In-Reply-To: <20010804193127.A5171@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I checked in some patches to get Windows 9x working again. I tried hard > for two weeks or more to come up with a plan for Windows 9x that didn't > require double copying of the Cygwin heap but, alas, I just couldn't do > it. > > Windows 95 seems carefully designed to give the illusion of functionality > while styming real programming at every step. > > I couldn't duplicate the reported problem of running rsync in /bin/sh so > I don't know if this is fixed or not. Otherwise, I think that cygwin > should be functional again. > > If we can fix the autoconf bug, I'd like to make a release. I can do some testing in win98 when I get back from europe. Is win98 more functional than win95 in the respects you mention? -- http://www.clock.org/~matt