On 21 September 2010 12:51, Earnie wrote: > Andy Koppe wrote: >>> Cygwin isn't strictly obliged to provide an interface to Windows. >> >> No, but then it wouldn't really be Cyg*win* anymore. It would >> effectively be Interix with a particularly slow fork(). That's >> unless it moved into its own subsystem, which of course would mean a >> major redesign. Also, it would be good-bye to cygutils, mintty, >> rxvt-native, Xwin and anything else that mixes POSIX with the Windows >> API. > > Which isn't going to sell. No one will want the changes.
I'm sure there are a fair few people who'd trade a faster fork() for reduced Windows integration, although I'm not among them. > Remember, > Cygwin exists solely as a money making project for Red Hat. So the > changes Cygwin makes ultimately will need to be approved by the Red Hat > customer base. Cygwin has a fairly strong community. I'm sure it would continue just fine if Redhat lost interest in it completely. Meanwhile, the one Cygwin developer who is employed by Redhat works extremely hard and is very responsive to community concerns. > MSYS on the other hand has no paying customers and the > changes there only need to be approved by the FOSS users who code and > maintain it. So are you saying that MSYS might become less integrated with Windows than Cygwin, or did you just fancy a spot of preaching apropos of nothing in particular? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
