On 21 September 2010 22:13, Andy Koppe wrote: > 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?
I'd like to retract that last half-sentence, which was quite unnecessary. 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
