> On May 3, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Michael Buckley via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > I may be fundamentally misunderstanding the Windows Subsystem for Linux, but > I believe it just provides binary compatibility for Linux x86_64 command-line > tools, but doesn't quite implement enough of the Linux syscalls to run a > Linux window manager in order to run GUI programs. So it's certainly > something you could compile your server code for if you wanted to host on a > Windows server, but it's not something you could use to distribute client > software.
I want to stop this thread of the conversation here. This is not a general technology discussion forum; it's not our place to second-guess whether Cygwin is useful. The Swift project's primary criterion for accepting a port is whether there are contributors willing to maintain it. That's not the only criterion — I could certainly imagine ports that would be too burdensome on the compiler to be worth trying to support, like a platform with a 12-bit byte — but I have seen no argument that the Cygwin port comes close to crossing that line. John. _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
