Re: Latest Cygwin Release 5 month old...
On Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:14 PM [EST], Charli Li wrote: VMWare player is only for *PLAYING* VMWare files. In order to set a VM up you gotta get VMWare Desktop or VMWare Server, like I have here on my box. Plus, VMs are much, much slower than normal boxes so it's not really a red herring if you can't even install the OS on the VM! For example, I couldn't even get Windows 2000 Server on the VM to even initilize the text-mode setup program (WINNT.EXE)! Easy way to fix that. VMX Builder: http://petruska.stardock.net/Software/VMware.html http://petruska.stardock.net/Software/Files/VMXBuilderSetup.exe Will build the player files for you with the hardware/settings you want. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: Cygwin.dll crash, alloca and custom stack
On Sunday, August 14, 2005 1:47 AM [EDT], Chris wrote: Yeah dude, you did. You pulled the rug out from under the C runtime, Cygwin, and apparently even the OS. It is not within the jurisdiction of a C program to do that. Uh, C doesn't have a runtime. All major languages in use today have a runtime - C is no different. On UNIX/Linux, its mostly (if not always) called libc (glibc being the GNU variant used on most Linux systems). On Windows, its msvcrt.dll (and for newer programs built with the 1.1 .Net tools, msvcr71.dll, and 2.0 beta .Net tools, msvcrt80.dll). These shared libraries provide the interfaces, calls, etc that all C language programs need and use. In the case of Cygwin, it provides the C runtime for applications that use it - which means you wont be using msvcrt.dll (and IIRC from discussions here, programs linked against both will either 1. crash and burn and/or 2) function in unexpected ways). I believe that issue has been covered in at least one FAQ entry. If a binary is 100% free of dependancies (and its not done in assembly), it usually means that the runtime is statically linked with the binary (which also tends to bloat the binary up quite a bit in size). I've not seen situations like that under Windows very often (to be honest, never in my experience), since even programs written in assembly need to link with GDI.DLL, COMCTL32.DLL, WSOCK32.DLL, etc in order to provide a GUI interface through Windows or access the TCP/IP stack, or access files on the disk, and so on.. And, correct me if I am wrong, Microsoft doesn't allow you to statically link msvcrt.dll with your program. Someone was working on a open source/free software version of msvcrt.dll that was going to be a drop in replacement for the MS version - no idea how far it actually got. Though I see static linked binaries on Linux quite a bit with commercial programs that don't provide you with the source. Easier then providing 50 builds to support every distribution in use, since every distribtuon seems to use a different version of glibc that may or may not be fully compatible with the version the program was compiled and dynamically linked against. I am not a programmer - though I was in the past (I did Pascal on the Mac, as well as TurboPascal on DOS/Win 3.x, and earily Borland C++ on Windows 3.x). These days I just port apps from Linux to Windows using Cygwin, and I'm a Linux sysadmin. So, all my knowledge/experience on stuff like this is from what I've read on here or on the web, or from blowing up and repairing my desktop/laptop and server systems. I welcome corrections to my explanations obviously. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Possible typo in cygwin snapshot build date
Even though its April Fools Day, I figured I'd point this out with the April 1st snapshot of cygwin1.dll: CYGWIN_NT-5.0 intrepid 1.5.14s(0.126/4/2) 20050221 22:13:58 i686 unknown unknown Cygwin Checking the version of the DLL via explorer shows 2005-04-01 13:57. Of course, if its already been mentioned, forgive me :) -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: ssh-agent people (and others) please try latest snapshot
On Wednesday, March 23, 2005 1:19 PM [EST], Christopher Faylor wrote: The latest (2005-03-23 as of this writing) snapshot has some more improvements from Corinna wrt unix domain sockets. We're coming close to a 1.5.14 release so I would appreciate it if people would try the latest snapshot and report their successes or failures here. http://cygwin.com/snapshots/ cgf With the 2005-03-23 snapshot, I unfortunately can no longer start cygwin or any program that depends on the Cygwin1.dll - the program uses 99% of the cpu, and must be killed with the task manager. This is a Win2k SP4 box with NTFS filesystem and all the latest patches on a Celeron 766. -22 doesn't exhibit this problem. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
More error level issues
Hey all, Sorry to bring this up again, but I'm having issues again with Cygwin not passing error level codes back to the cmd shell. Example, when clamscan finds a virus, it issues a return code of 1. Inside of a Cygwin env it returns fine. ../test/clam.exe: ClamAV-Test-File FOUND --- SCAN SUMMARY --- Known viruses: 31320 Engine version: devel-20050301 Scanned directories: 0 Scanned files: 1 Infected files: 1 Data scanned: 0.00 MB Time: 3.372 sec (0 m 3 s) $ echo $? 1 However, outside of Cygwin in a cmd shell, its returning 256 instead of 1 to cmd. ../test/clam.exe: ClamAV-Test-File FOUND --- SCAN SUMMARY --- Known viruses: 31320 Engine version: devel-20050301 Scanned directories: 0 Scanned files: 1 Infected files: 1 Data scanned: 0.00 MB Time: 2.840 sec (0 m 2 s) echo %ERRORLEVEL% 256 I'm using Cygwin 1.5.13 - this apparently seems to work fine in 1.5.12. I know I brought up this issue in the past, and it was supposedly fixed, but it doesn't entirely look like it. This is Win2k Pro SP4. Thanks! -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: More error level issues
On Wednesday, March 02, 2005 3:45 PM [EST], Christopher Faylor wrote: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2005-01/msg01382.html Yeah, I know of that post. I'm still _highly_ confused as to this - chalk it up to the fact I'm more used to dealing with return codes in Linux, so forgive my ignorance. I'm also not the greatest programmer in the world. Your telling me an exit code of 1 inside of cygwin (and Linux for that matter) is supposed to be considered as errorlevel 256 by Windows rather then 1? I'm sorry if I am not catching on here entirely of why this is. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: slow handling of large sets of files?
On Tuesday, February 01, 2005 3:22 PM [EST], Ken Sheldon wrote: More information: Not only Cygwin apps incur this large performance penalty. Something similar happens with the cmd.exe prompt command DIR, with the windows file explorer, or with IIS (FTP server). This only seems to happen in the directory structures created by my CygWin scripts (using apps: tar, wget, cp) Severe fragmentation of the MFT on NTFS volumes can cause this. As Cygwin tends to generate alot of directory entries and files for its filesystem layout, this would be more pronounced there. Try something like Raxco Perfect Disk (its got a 30 day trial), and defrag your disk completely. See if it helps. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: slow handling of large sets of files?
On Tuesday, February 01, 2005 7:53 PM [EST], Brian Dessent wrote: Ken Sheldon wrote: Not only Cygwin apps incur this large performance penalty. Something similar happens with the cmd.exe prompt command DIR, with the windows file explorer, or with IIS (FTP server). This only seems to happen in the directory structures created by my CygWin scripts (using apps: tar, wget, cp) If I had to take a wild guess I'd say that's because when a normal win32 app creates a file it usually inherits its ACL from the parent directory, and presumably NTFS is tuned for this in some way so that checking thousands of such files that all inherit ACLs is fast. However, when cygwin creates a file or dir it usually sets the permissions explicitly to match what you would expect on a POSIX system (i.e. 644 or 755.) Try creating your files/folders with nontsec set and see if the cygwin-created trees are as slow as native-created ones. Brian NTFS in general just isn't very fast when you really start using some of the advanced features. Its just not tuned very well for large amounts of files. A perfect example of this is when you need to delete alot of files and directories all at once - it takes an awfully long time to do when compared to ext2/3 or reiserfs, and I've noticed that sometimes the system doesn't properly clean up the directory indexes, leaving stale ACL entries and such (run chkdsk, boot, do a bunch of filesystem operations such as deleting files, then run chkdsk again, and most likely, it will report even more errors). MFT fragmentation seems to compound already existing problems. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Cygwin not passing return code to Windows?
Hello all, I hope I'm not repeating a bug someone mentioned in the past, but here goes. I maintain one of the ports of ClamAV for windows, which I do using Cygwin. Up until Cygwin 1.5.12, the return code from stuff like clamscan was being passed back to Windows, so programs outside of Cygwin could call the binary and tell weather or not the program found a virus in the file it scanned. Now, in the latest snapshots, that is no longer the case. See example below using freshclam, but also applies to the other apps: Cygwin1.dll from 1.5.12: C:\clamav-devel\binfreshclam ClamAV update process started at Sun Jan 30 14:58:31 2005 main.cvd is up to date (version: 29, sigs: 29086, f-level: 3, builder: tomek) daily.cvd is up to date (version: 692, sigs: 975, f-level: 4, builder: ccordes) C:\clamav-devel\binecho %ERRORLEVEL% 1 Cygwin1.dll from latest 1.5.13 snapshots: C:\clamav-devel\binfreshclam ClamAV update process started at Sun Jan 30 14:56:49 2005 main.cvd is up to date (version: 29, sigs: 29086, f-level: 3, builder: tomek) daily.cvd is up to date (version: 692, sigs: 975, f-level: 4, builder: ccordes) C:\clamav-devel\binecho %ERRORLEVEL% -2147483392 Has the behavior been changed for a reason, or is this an unintended side effect of something else? I know running inside of Cygwin using the bash shell, the return codes come back fine as expected with either Cygwin1.dll. This only seems to happen when running the program outside of a full Cygwin shell. My machine is Win2k SP4, but I've seen the same problems on XP and 2003. Thanks all! -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Wednesday, January 05, 2005 11:38 PM [EST], Christopher Faylor wrote: How do you feel about the off-color content in the cygwin fortune files? [ ] Offended. Think about the children! [ ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values. [ ] Don't care. Can we go back to talking about how negative this list is now? cgf [ X ] Not offended. Stop bothering me with your Puritanical values Some people say I'm too rude and crude, and very outspoken - but I'm a sysadmin/sysop. Frankly, I'd just put a warning in the package docs and leave it be. We shouldn't be forcing our views on other people. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
Personally, I thought that them doing this was a sign of a more innocent time, where we didn't have to worry about every single word that came out of our mouth (or keyboard). Seriously guy, your type is one of the primary reasons why the internet is getting - its not quite there yet, but getting - to be *no fun*. It was built on freedom and free-thinking, and the very fact that this conversation is taking place is a testimony to how bitter it has become. rant I tend to agree with you on that. I was on the internet since the middle 90s, and even then, you could start to see new people/businesses forcing their own views on the rest of the Internet, that had been there long before them, and continue to be there long after they are bankrupt/dead/gone/kaput. Look back, and see who developed the BSD operating systems, and even Linux. We are talking about people who may not have been the most socially acceptable people, and may have had their own ideas about what is funny, and their work shows this. Have you ever looked at the source code for some of the major projects out there that have been around for more then 5 or 6 years? The code is sprinkled with stuff you wouldn't want little kids reading. That is their right to do that - it is their internet just as much as you or I. Parents have a right to control what their kids do/see/hear/etc, but, that right only extends to the stuff they own and that doesn't step on the rights of other people. Frankly, I find some of those rude and crude things in limericks funny, and apparently, I'm not the only one here who does. As grown adults, who are capable of making our own decisions, we need to not let our religious views, or personal views for that matter, impede on others who have their own views. As long as you include a warning somewhere, I dont see any problem with the package having that stuff. It would be one thing if the package was labeled SUPER CLEAN AND POLITICALLY CORRECT and it had it, but come on people. Anyone who has done any kind of sysadmin work or programming knows full well whats going to be in the fortunes file and the risks involved. Its like going into a NOC with a bunch of sysadmins/sysops/netadmins and expecting them to keep the language clean. It just aint gonna happen. Its the culture, and its accepted within this culture too. The fact that I have to be ultra careful these days how I word my articles or short stories or novels that I post online bugs the living crap out of me. This is not the internet I remember. /rant Anyway How bout those Mets? :) -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: Obscene content in cygwin file.
On Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:58 PM [EST], Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: Hi all, Not sure if the highly obscene limericks (/usr/share/fortune/limerick) are meant to be in the cygwin distro... Kalman Dee Canberra, OZ Um, yeah, I have to second that. And I don't even want to know what the French ones say. A little on the blue side, Powers That Be, and by a little I mean, No one who is not a sailor admitted without parent. -- Gary R. Van Sickle Remember, alot of these have been in the fortunes package for god knows how long, and Cygwin isn't the only one thats going to have them. I'm betting that any distro that has the Fortunes package has them too. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: cygwin reboots my PC randomly
On Wednesday, December 29, 2004 11:31 AM [EST], Igor Pechtchanski wrote: Unless you have a cron job that runs shutdown -r or reboot :-), Brian's reply pretty much explains it... Igor A suggestion too - if you have mysterious reboots, turn off Automatically reboot in the System control panel, under the Advanced tab, and click the Startup and Recovery button. That way, you actually see the blue screen with the information that caused the BSOD. Otherwise, check the Event Logs, but I've seen times where crashes were not properly recorded in the event logs. So, turn off auto reboot may be the best option. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: Hyperthreading problems
On Tuesday, December 28, 2004 5:31 PM [EST], Stephane Donze wrote: Hi, Thank you for your reply. You are right, I did not look at the code, and I certainly do not pretend to be able to fix this problem. I am sorry to have to say that, but your message is a very good example of the fundamental difference between a project that is useable and reliable, and a project that almost works and will never do more that that. Funny, Cygwin is usable and reliable here for the stuff I use it for. Yeah, its got bugs, but every program in existance has bugs. The problem I reported is known for almost 2 years (posted by Henrik Wist, 20 Mar 2003, subject was cygwin commands sometime hang on dual-processor (WinNT-SP5)). I don't care if it is the same bug or not, the fact is that cygwin has a critical problem (i.e. something that prevent users to use even simple commands like 'ls' !!) on multiprocessor machines and nobody seems to care about it. You cannot just expect people to wait until you someday have a system that shows the problem everytime they encounter a bug. Frankly, unless the developers can reproduce these bugs, they won't get fixed. Its the stuck up attitudes of users like yourself that make trying to fix bugs all the harder. If you guys want cygwin to be used by real people, in real life production or development environments, you should go a bit further than I don't have the problem on my computer, so fix it yourself. If you don't want to or are not able to pay attention to real world bugs, cygwin will probably never be more than an almost working program that runs on your computer the time to take nice screenshots, but fails miserably when users try to make it work in the real life. rant I think you really really really need to reevaluate what you say before you hit send. The open source/free software developers that I communicate with/work with wrote the stuff they did because they needed an application/library/script for a specific need, and decided to release the software to the public in the hope that someone else might find it useful, and the hope that other people might contribute back. I feel the same way myself, and anytime someone tells me that what I work on is crap or sucks and they will never use it because it sucks, I tell them this: You got the program from me for free. You are not my customer. You do not have a support contract with me. As such, I work on the projects when I can, and at the rate which I can afford. If you have a specific request, you can either fix it yourself, or you can compensate me for the time I spend making the changes you want if I don't have the ability to spare some free time. When people want me to port an app to say, MacOS or similar, I tell them similar things: I can't afford a Mac right now. Provide me with a system that I can use to make it work, and I'll do my best to make it work. What you consider 'real people' is obviously not the same type of people I consider 'real people'. I consider these 'real people' to be the individuals who are on this list, who work on the project, and who actively contribute to the project. You may use Cygwin, but until you start actively contributing to it, and helping the developers fix the bugs and such, you have no right to complain. I may not be an active contributor to Cygwin, but I do work alot with other OSS projects, and they get this same type of response from people too, and frankly, I'm sick of it. /rant NB: this post is not at all about commercial software versus OSS, there are lots of industrial quality open source projects like Apache, MySQL, etc. Yes, and those do well because people contribute to them to make them better. *hint hint* -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: rbldnsd
On Sat, September 18, 2004 3:28 pm, Robert Menschel said: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Has anyone installed rbldnsd under Cygwin? Developer's web page is at http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/rbldnsd.html I tried doing an install on Cygwin, under Windows XP, and have not been successful. There's something I'm missing. I'm quite familiar with simple Unix/Linux administration, but have no experience with DNS administration. I'm hoping someone has already been through this and can give me a list of things to do/check. If not, I'll repeat the process here, document my actions step by step, and see if someone can find something wrong with what I'm doing. Thanks for any assistance. Bob Menschel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQUyMOpebK8E4qh1HEQIIJwCeI+ZBs3/wojWgYYbIc/r8Q2tKRIkAoKm9 n0lLjIoQxzfX7EH56RsgXasC =heAz -END PGP SIGNATURE- What was the error message/failure message/etc? We can't help you if you don't give us any details on what happened exactly. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources http://www.sosdg.org The Abusive Hosts Blocking List http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: two instances of a.exe on dual processor - still only 50% performance
On Tuesday, July 06, 2004 2:16 PM [EST], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, I've tried to plough through your archives on dual processors and somebody said that when you've got a dual processor machine, one has to start two instances of one's program to get both processors working - one on each job. Fine, this is what I used to do on a DEC Apha, but on my Windows box this does not seem to be the case. I still get only 50% out of the box when checking with taskmgr... What am I doing wrong? Do I need to write multi-threaded, whatever that is? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Two perfectly independent jobs should run just fine along each other, using both CPUs to the maximum... Many thanks for any help! Mathias From my experience, you have to set the process's processor affinity (my spelling sucks). In windows, this can be done IIRC by using the task manager. You tell it which processor you want the process to run on exclusively. Of course, this was many years ago when I last played with dual processors on a Windows machine (why waste such system power with an OS like Windows when Linux can make the most of it?). Ahh the days of dual PPro 200s and Windows 2000 Pro :) -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources http://www.sosdg.org The Abusive Hosts Blocking List http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: CYGWIN/BASH CHMOD on W9x.
On Monday, June 21, 2004 3:43 PM [EDT], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. Or, has someone been succesful to chmod with a W9x environment IIRC (and I could be wrong, since its been a while since I've worked with Cygwin under a non NT based system), Win9x/ME has no security hooks or controls that would make this kind of control possible - partially because of the limited subset of Win32 support in them, and partially because of lack of support for NTFS. But, like I said, I could be wrong, and things might have changed. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources http://www.sosdg.org The Abusive Hosts Blocking List http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
Re: ssh become slower and slower?
On Tuesday, June 15, 2004 1:30 PM [EDT], Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Better advice would be to try a *different* firewall, not none at all. Anything by Norton is very bad news, because all their software is hideously bloated, installs hooks into way too many corners of your system, and destabilises everything. That goes for their AV and antispam stuff as well as their PFW. Something lower impact, like Zone Alarm or Agnitum or any of the free PFWs should do. And I always recommend Grisoft AVG (free edition) as a good low-intrusiveness antivirus. Kerio Personal Firewall is pretty decent too - I run it here with no problems once I turn off the IDS (in free mode, v4 only has packet filtering on incoming/outgoing connections, none of the more advanced interprocess communcation control, etc). If you run XP, you can use the built in firewall (moreso, get the SP2 RC and use the more powerful firewall in that). I'm one of the people who produces ClamAV for Windows using Cygwin. Unfortunately, we dont have real time scanning yet. Working on it though from what I know. -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources http://www.sosdg.org The Abusive Hosts Blocking List http://www.ahbl.org -- 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/
