On 8/17/2012 02:22, Warren Young wrote: > On 8/16/2012 10:34 AM, Brian Wilson wrote: >> >> Corina > > Corinna. > >> is correct, Cygwin is supposed to be a Posix compliant environment > > It's also supposed to interoperate with native Windows programs. >
That's fine when it works, but that is not always the case. >> If you want to use Windoze tools, why are you using Cygwin? > > First, instant 100 point credibility penalty for being puerile. > > Second, the whole reason for using Cygwin is so you could have a > Linux/POSIX environment *on Windows.* If you have no need for Windows > programs and want a Cygwin-like environment, wouldn't you be running > Linux, or a BSD, or OS X, or Solaris, or...? > So it's Cygwin's fault when a Windows program interferes with it? I still think Cygwin should prioritize compatibility with Cygwin programs, anything else is just icing on the cake. > Okay, so you come back saying something about how there should be some > Chinese Wall between the Cygwin and native Windows lands. In that case, > I recommend you install one of the above-named OSes in a VM. It'll be > faster and more featureful. > In fact, yes, especially in places win32 clashes with POSIX implementation. I could go on and on about how they differ, for example BLODA, network API, file IO, symlink implementation, you've just seen one yourself. > I'm actually struggling to come up with a reason why you would *ever* > run Cygwin if you didn't ever want it to touch the native Windows side > of things, or vice versa. I guess it uses less RAM and starts up faster > than a VM.... Sure, a VM isn't always practical or even available, especially when byzantine IT policies is in place. For instance, I don't want a VM simply to use a Cygwin irc client.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature