What I would try is:
1. Rename the cygwin on my machine.
2. Save and then erase the cygwin registry settings.
3. Copy their whole cygwin installation and registry settings to your machine.
4. Use setup to download the source packages you need that are not available
in their distribut
It seems like there is endless confusions with cygwin mount's because
the name of the command is the same as the Unix mount command, and
some of the command line options are similar. Has anyone given
serious consideration to renaming the command to something like,
cygmount?
Monty Python? Hmmm. I thought it was a reference to the Carol
Barnett Show. I remember a skit which was a fake commercial arguing
if something was a desert topping or a floor wax. The answer was
both. How convenient...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:53:06 +0100, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
The Carol Burnett Show:
01/10/1976, Is it a dessert topping or a floor wax? "Saturday Night
Live's" Chevy Chase delivers the good news that new "Shimmer" is both
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:10:02 -0400, Doctor Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Monty Python? Hmmm
I know, this thread is so far off topic it is silly. To bad a
moderator can't retroactively kill messages to a mailing list... BTW.
I think I was wrong, it was Saturday Night Live. TGFTM (Thank
Goodness For Threaded Mail).
Bill
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:11:28 -0700, Karl
I think about a year ago there was a patch added to the cygwin core to
allow you to use 'umask' to change apparent permissions on a FAT32
partition. The idea was you could then do something like:
umask 077; ssh foo.bar.com
I do not know if this code is still in the cygwin libraries, and if it
wi
problem is that you are using Win9x, &/or FAT32 you are in
luck. The remaining question is if this works for network mounts with
Win9x
Bill
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 08:36:31 -0400, Doctor Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think about a year ago there was
Does smbntsec work if the file system is shared from a Win9x machine?
If so, where are the NT ACL's stored?
Bill
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:42:05 -0700, Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24 02:36, Brian Dessent
It looks like it is up to RedHat lawyers to decide if they wish to
enforce their license.
Bill
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:54:32 +0300, Jani Tiainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 01:59:12PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >>Does anyone know
You misunderstand the GPL. The GPL does not grant you a right to the
source code, it creates a responsibility for them to give your the
source code.
I know it sounds like the same thing, but it isn't. If you had a
legal right to the source code, you could then sue them for a copy.
But since ins
Christopher, sometimes it is a good idea to look past the immediate
request. While the question is not necessarily appropriate for this
list, there is an answer that is appropriate for this list.
Stephen, here is what you can do to resolve your problem.
1. Collect as much information you can and
In regards to adding code to support coLinux, I don't see why that
would be neccessary. coLinux doesn't need to talk to cygwin. Except
for older versions, coLinux is not built on cygwin.
If someone is really interested, as part of the coLinux tools I wrote
set of functions for querying cygwin pa
Of course. And if you were charging for your services, they would be
right. The customer is always right. (Within reason.) But when you
are volunteering your time and efforts, it is reasonable to expect
that you expect at minimum some common courtesy and appreciation for
your effort. Just for
13 matches
Mail list logo
