This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: cygwin poll
- To: <cygwin at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- Subject: RE: cygwin poll
- From: "Andre Oliveira da Costa" <costa at cade dot com dot br>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 11:11:31 -0200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com
> [mailto:cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com]On Behalf Of Graham Murray
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 7:23 AM
> To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: Re: cygwin poll
>
> Is POSIX not just as valid as Win32 within Windows NT? In which case,
> if Windows tools barf at valid POSIX filenames (which are also valid
> under NTFS) then surely it is the tools which are broken.
Yes, I think you might say that, but it doesn't help much. Cygwin is just a
layer on top of M$-Windows, and if we were to completely ignore Windows
tools and stick only to cygwin envirnoment (shell and programs), than we'd
be better off running Linux (or other UNIX) directly. It doesn't help saying
"Windows is wrong, let's do it this way and wait until Microsoft fixes it",
because we know it might never happen. If this decision doesn't imply in too
much hassle then it's ok, let's do it (symbolic links could be used as an
example here -- they can be handled as ordinary files by Windows Explorer).
But, if it means Windows frequently used tools will not only barf, but
actually hang or abort, then I'd rather not do it.
... don't get me wrong, I wish Windows didn't give Cygwin guys so many
constraints to deal with, but... (actually, what I really wish is I could
forget Windows and use Linux at work! =) )
Just my two cents...
Regards,
Andre,
--
André Oliveira da Costa
(costa@cade.com.br)
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com