Re[2]: cygwin on 95 slower than NT

[Paul Sokolovsky <paul-ml at is dot lg dot ua>]

Hello Chris,

Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:


>>>>It's known issue of Cygwin (and other POSIX layers, e.g.  UWIN).  They
>>>>all by some reason (probably because they themselves were developed on
>>>>NT, without enough attention to other Win32 systems) count Win9x as
>>>>'degraded mode'.
>>
[]

>>failed achieving objectives of my thesis! For some unknown reason
>>stupid thing didn't want to work badly - it did screen output quite
>>fast, process files fast also and didn't corrupt them trying to cut
>>\r\n to \n or vice-versa. But don't hold breath, story has happy end:
>>I was granted my Master degree.

CF> If you have this superior tool available to you, one would have to
CF> wonder why you aren't using it.

    Because it's not yet as complete as cygwin. But I'm slowly
working on it.

CF> Again, feel free to provide a patch.

    At the spring, here was the discussion why cygwin doesn't get as
much contributions as it really worth. I remember some guy told that
he disagreed with design principles and that - pitifully - made him
start own scratch instead of more deserving way of helping improving
what already was.

CF> cgf


Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:paul-ml@is.lg.ua



--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com