Isn't that kind of the point Irek? You're remembering the 80's and this isn't the 80's. You can do all the same stuff in a VM without the problems using a host of programs fit for purpose. Don't tell me that you're putting this in production for big companies, you'd get laughed out on peer review.
Research for research's sake is fun, sure, but that's all it is. Doesn't AT&T Research have something better for these really smart people to work on? > Send uwin-users mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/uwin-users > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of uwin-users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 9 ([email protected]) > 2. Re: uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 9 (Irek Szczesniak) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 15:03:00 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [uwin-users] uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 9 > Message-ID: > > <89f965bcf171a6230d5d274356d80730.squir...@questmail.futurequest.net:443> > > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > I realize that these days you're all pretty much icons at AT&T Research, > and we all know that's the only useful part of it left. But if I had to > run these programs, I'd just run everything though a VM. A VM is not only > portable but you can take snapshots of it and run it anywhere the VM host > runs. What's really the point of this? I know that you folk wrote uwin and > it's been useful to me, but sometimes you have to move on and find better > pastures. > > There's no way that I couldn't go into some place, given proper access, > and sort this out with a VM, their choice of OSs. All of this dealing with > Win8, Win7, WinXP, win this win that, it's a losing game. > > Except that you're icons at AT&T, what's to gain from this? > > >> Send uwin-users mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/uwin-users >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of uwin-users digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 5 (Irek Szczesniak) >> 2. Re: uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 5 (Glenn Fowler) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 23:09:54 +0200 >> From: Irek Szczesniak <[email protected]> >> To: David Korn <[email protected]>, Glenn Fowler >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [uwin-users] uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 5 >> Message-ID: >> <CALnxO56gx_UTwxm3v-2EnsDBYUhLh=gtxp2jqddwd6-rdct...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Irek Szczesniak <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM, David Korn <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Subject: Re: Re: [uwin-users] uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 5 >>>> -------- >>>> >>>>> my guess is the uwin fork/exec code would run afoul of wine's >>>>> emulation >>>>> that itself probably uses fork/exec and stands on its head trying to >>>>> hide that >>>> >>>> I don't know why this would be a problem assuming that the WINE >>>> emulation of CreateProcess() doesn't randomly lay out the address >>>> space. >>>> That means that two calls to CreateProcess() with the same arguments >>>> should put shared libraries at the same address. >>>> >>>> UWIN uses only WIN32 calls so that if WINE implements WIN32 >>>> faithfully, >>>> then in theory UWIN would work on WINE. >>> >>> Does posix.dll implement posix_spawn()? IMO a native posix_spawn() >>> implementation would avoid the trouble of a fork(), exec() sequence >> >> Glenn? >> >> Irek >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 17:23:41 -0400 >> From: Glenn Fowler <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [uwin-users] uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 5 >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> >> On Wed, 22 May 2013 23:09:54 +0200 Irek Szczesniak wrote: >>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Irek Szczesniak >>> <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM, David Korn <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >> Subject: Re: Re: [uwin-users] uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 5 >>> >> -------- >>> >> >>> >>> my guess is the uwin fork/exec code would run afoul of wine's >>> emulation >>> >>> that itself probably uses fork/exec and stands on its head trying >>> to >>> hide that >>> >> >>> >> I don't know why this would be a problem assuming that the WINE >>> >> emulation of CreateProcess() doesn't randomly lay out the address >>> space. >>> >> That means that two calls to CreateProcess() with the same arguments >>> >> should put shared libraries at the same address. >>> >> >>> >> UWIN uses only WIN32 calls so that if WINE implements WIN32 >>> faithfully, >>> >> then in theory UWIN would work on WINE. >>> > >>> > Does posix.dll implement posix_spawn()? IMO a native posix_spawn() >>> > implementation would avoid the trouble of a fork(), exec() sequence >> >>> Glenn? >> >> posix.dll provides spawnveg() with similar but limited semantics to >> posix_spawn() >> libast spawnvex() uses posix_spawn() or spawnveg() if possible >> however fork() is required by ksh -- well ksh can run on non-fork >> systems >> but its >> not nearly as efficient -- dgk can provide more details on that >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> uwin-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/uwin-users >> >> >> End of uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 9 >> ***************************************** >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 22:03:15 +0200 > From: Irek Szczesniak <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [uwin-users] uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 9 > Message-ID: > <calnxo55kelvxqywbuuzw1qkt0qyezda8dwwdam14cmq7agh...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 9:03 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> I realize that these days you're all pretty much icons at AT&T Research, >> and we all know that's the only useful part of it left. But if I had to >> run these programs, I'd just run everything though a VM. A VM is not >> only >> portable but you can take snapshots of it and run it anywhere the VM >> host >> runs. What's really the point of this? I know that you folk wrote uwin >> and >> it's been useful to me, but sometimes you have to move on and find >> better >> pastures. >> >> There's no way that I couldn't go into some place, given proper access, >> and sort this out with a VM, their choice of OSs. All of this dealing >> with >> Win8, Win7, WinXP, win this win that, it's a losing game. >> >> Except that you're icons at AT&T, what's to gain from this? > > For us the gain of UWIN is cost reduction through portability - write > once, run anywhere(TM), and a multitude of other advantages like > automation, scripting tasks and giving power users the ability to use > their systems better. > > The disadvantage however is the rather rough, unfinished touch of UWIN > compared to Cygwin. There are too many corners which are hard to > ignore (such as the lack of newer SUS apis, lack of 64bit perl or the > lack of Unicode support in the Windows console), significant stumbling > blocks for beginners (Olga Kryzhonovska posted a list of issues > lately) and rather alienating in general (such has the lack of a > software library like Cygwin has or a graphical installer to install > software from a network library. Sometimes I'm reminded of the UNIX > environments in the late 80' where bsh and vt52 terminals were the > dominating user interfaces). > > The sad summary is: While UWIN is an advanced Unix-like environment > for Windows it is hardly attracting new users in its current > incarnation. Its for power users only who know the stuff very very > well. > > Irek > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > uwin-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/uwin-users > > > End of uwin-users Digest, Vol 98, Issue 10 > ****************************************** > _______________________________________________ uwin-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/uwin-users
