RE: cygwin without Win32
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Dessent Larry Hall wrote: Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are compared with NT and greater? No, not that has been reported to this list anyway. I wonder how close to an approximation of reality a simple poll/form on the cygwin.com front page would generate? Brian I wonder if running a script across the list archive to extract all the cycheck output and counting the different systems that way would produce a result with any meaning to it at all? cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- 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/
RE: cygwin without Win32
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Dave Korn wrote: -Original Message- From: cygwin-owneratcygwindotcom On Behalf Of Brian Dessent ^^ Hmmm? Larry Hall wrote: Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are compared with NT and greater? No, not that has been reported to this list anyway. I wonder how close to an approximation of reality a simple poll/form on the cygwin.com front page would generate? Brian I wonder if running a script across the list archive to extract all the cycheck output and counting the different systems that way would produce a result with any meaning to it at all? cheers, DaveK Perhaps only which systems have more problems (or which systems have more consciencious users that actually read http://cygwin.com/problems.html). Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_[EMAIL PROTECTED] |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D. '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route to the bathroom is a major career booster. -- Patrick Naughton -- 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/
Re: cygwin without Win32
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:23:47AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Dave Korn wrote: -Original Message- From: cygwin-owneratcygwindotcom On Behalf Of Brian Dessent ^^ Hmmm? Larry Hall wrote: Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are compared with NT and greater? No, not that has been reported to this list anyway. I wonder how close to an approximation of reality a simple poll/form on the cygwin.com front page would generate? Brian I wonder if running a script across the list archive to extract all the cycheck output and counting the different systems that way would produce a result with any meaning to it at all? Perhaps only which systems have more problems (or which systems have more consciencious users that actually read http://cygwin.com/problems.html). I guess I'll keep making the observation that any poll would be worthless as long as people seem to be ignoring that fact and still coming up with alternate ways of polling. We are not dropping support for older Windows systems. cgf -- 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/
RE: cygwin without Win32
-Original Message- From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor I guess I'll keep making the observation that any poll would be worthless as long as people seem to be ignoring that fact and still coming up with alternate ways of polling. AFAIC the discussion has long since left behind any pretence of real-world relevance and become a purely academic oh-I-wonder kind of thing about what the actual balance of NT series vs. 9x series cygwin users. We are not dropping support for older Windows systems. Nothing I have said should be taken as condoning that option in any way. Hell, dropping support for 9x is the sort of low-down dirty thing that only someone like... oh, say, Microsoft... would consider doing... cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- 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/
Cygwin without Win32
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. Dax Kelson -- 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/
Re: cygwin without Win32
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:37:27PM -0700, Dax Kelson 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? There would certainly be a real detriment in the fact that cygwin would stop working for Windows 95/98/Me. If we could focus just on NT class systems, there is all sorts of improvements that we could make. I don't think that all of the people using those systems would be too happy with us, though, as much as I'd like to ditch them. cgf -- 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/
Re: Cygwin without Win32
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/
Re: cygwin without Win32
At 07:12 PM 1/19/2004, Andrew DeFaria you wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:37:27PM -0700, Dax Kelson 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? There would certainly be a real detriment in the fact that cygwin would stop working for Windows 95/98/Me. If we could focus just on NT class systems, there is all sorts of improvements that we could make. I don't think that all of the people using those systems would be too happy with us, though, as much as I'd like to ditch them. Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are compared with NT and greater? No, not that has been reported to this list anyway. -- 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/
Re: cygwin without Win32
Larry Hall wrote: Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are compared with NT and greater? No, not that has been reported to this list anyway. I wonder how close to an approximation of reality a simple poll/form on the cygwin.com front page would generate? Brian -- 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/
Re: cygwin without Win32
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:41:13PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote: Larry Hall wrote: Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are compared with NT and greater? No, not that has been reported to this list anyway. I wonder how close to an approximation of reality a simple poll/form on the cygwin.com front page would generate? Since the end result would be status quo no matter what the poll showed, it's hardly worth the time. cgf -- 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/
Re: cygwin without Win32
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:12:25PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: There would certainly be a real detriment in the fact that cygwin would stop working for Windows 95/98/Me. If we could focus just on NT class systems, there is all sorts of improvements that we could make. I don't think that all of the people using those systems would be too happy with us, though, as much as I'd like to ditch them. Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are compared with NT and greater? The fact that Pierre Humblet uses Windows Me is reason enough for me to keep it around. I wouldn't want to lose his contributions to the project and, perhaps more importantly, his ability to tolerate me when I get crabby. cgf -- 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/
Re: cygwin without Win32
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:36:42PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:12:25PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: There would certainly be a real detriment in the fact that cygwin would stop working for Windows 95/98/Me. If we could focus just on NT class systems, there is all sorts of improvements that we could make. I don't think that all of the people using those systems would be too happy with us, though, as much as I'd like to ditch them. Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are compared with NT and greater? The fact that Pierre Humblet uses Windows Me is reason enough for me to keep it around. I wouldn't want to lose his contributions to the project and, perhaps more importantly, his ability to tolerate me when I get crabby. Thanks a lot, Chris. But according to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/productinfo/sysreqs/default.asp it won't work on NT4 and Windows XP Home Edition either. That increases the user population. Now that 1.5.6 is out, I was just thinking that I should send you a refreshed patch for [Patch]: Improving tty_list security (part 1).. Are you ready for that? Pierre -- 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/
