On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Sunil wrote:
> > amusingling enough -- their
> > execution times are *slower* than cygwin's... Of
>
> this is a joke right? I found SFU to be at least 2-3
> times faster in loading and executing programs in
> general. Its too bad their POSIX imple. is less than
> half baked and unuseable for building any package
> OOTB.
Any favorable mention of SFU on this list had better be a joke. :-)
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!
"The Sun will pass between the Earth and the Moon tonight for a total
Lunar eclipse..." -- WCBS Radio Newsbrief, Oct 27 2004, 12:01 pm EDT
--
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/
