On 27/03/2012 7:40 AM, Michael Lutz wrote:
Am 27.03.2012 10:36 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
Needless to say that the ultimately most efficient way would be
to find a method to avoid rebase problems after fork at all. The
last attempt at it looked promising at first, but then again...
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsgeneraldevelopmentissues/thread/afdf1b68-1f3e-47f5-94cf-51e397afe073
You'd think all the statements about interoperability after the EU
anti-trust cases would apply to Cygwin as well.
If SUA can, Cygwin should as well: "Microsoft shall ensure that
third-party software products can interoperate with Microsoft’s Relevant
Software Products using the same Interoperability Information on an equal
footing as other Microsoft Software Products. (“Interoperability
Commitment”)".
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2009/dec09/12-16Statement.mspx
Conveniently, nothing except a press contact is given on that page.
I suspect the EU commission could track down the right people at MS if
they were to decide that SUA/cygwin interop were important.
Unfortunately, it would have been much better for that issue to be
raised (a) while MS was still whimpering from the smackdown and (b)
before the announcement that SUA will be deprecated in Win8, after being
essentially unusable for several years before that.
Ryan
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
