On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:04:40AM -0700, Sunil wrote: >>Any favorable mention of SFU on this list had better be a joke. :-) > >:) > >but can't deny the truth. Seriously, open source on windows can't do >better than what it does(upto the limits provided by OS) in terms of >efficiency. Its hardly at fault, the thing below it is so darn closed.
Well, just to be devil's advocate, SFU is hardly unique in being a closed "UNIX" implementation. If you are going to fault Microsoft for this then you have to also fault HP, IBM, and (for now) Sun. The last I knew (and it's been a while since I looked into this), SFU gets its speed from being a "subsystem" which can use some of the more low-level things than something like cygwin can. But, I thought that it was actually a pretty nice implementation of UNIX, all things considered. OTOH, Corinna is hard at work adding low-level Nt* calls to cygwin so, if it wasn't for the requirement that everything has to work on Windows 9x, the DLL would be smaller and faster. Instead, every system call currently needs to have a "do this if it's NT and that if it's 9x" test so "we" have been slow in moving to bypass the win32 api layer on Windows NT. OTOH, we will rebuild it. We do have the technology. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
