This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Bug in od, cat, etc reading binary files
- To: gnu-win32 at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Bug in od, cat, etc reading binary files
- From: "Earnie Boyd" <earnie_boyd at hotmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:47:45 PDT
>Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 12:58:13 -0400
>To: marcus@bighorn.dr.lucent.com, gnu-win32@cygnus.com
>From: Larry Hall <lhall@rfk.com>
>Subject: Re: Bug in od, cat, etc reading binary files
>
>At 09:41 AM 9/26/97 -0600, marcus@bighorn.dr.lucent.com wrote:
>>> >It seems to me that if one wants to port software into the NT
environment
>>> >then one has no choice but to run the normal way NT programs do
(without
>>>
>>> A. We are not porting to NT, we are porting to the cygwin32 API
>>> B. Most Un*x tools expect Binary IO, mounting without -b will break
many
>configure scripts
>>
>>I have to agree with the original poster on this. What good is the
cygwin32
>>API on NT if it is not compatible with the rest of NT? If you are
going to
>>only use programs running in the cygwin32 world, then why not just run
Linux
>>instead and get better performance and better compatibility? If
you're
>>running NT, it seems that you likely need it to run some other things
that
>>only run on NT, so if cygwin32 is to be useful, it should also be able
to
>>deal with files produced by or intended for these other programs.
>>
>>Sure, it may be a royal pain to have to deal with the compatibility
problems,
>>and that's probably where a lot of the ugliness of NT comes from, but
I think
>>that that's the reality of the NT world. If you don't want to be
compatible
>>with the rest of the NT world, why try to run on NT in the first
place?
>>
>>marcus hall
>
>(I swore I was going to stay out of this!)
>
>Marcus,
>
>I don't think anyone will argue that having at least an option to get
full
>Windows platform compatibility is a desirable thing. However, your
>implication that cygwin32 (or gnu-win32) is not useful without this
option
>is a bit too broad. For the general reason that cygwin32 allows
>traditionally UNIX based programs to be ported quickly and easily to
Windows
>platforms, cygwin32 is useful to many people in many areas. Tossing
this
>fact aside is close to insulting to all who create and work on cygwin32
and
>those who have and are currently using it. If Windows compatibility is
>what you need from a development environment, I suggest you use for now
>ming32 or other commercial environments. While I'm sure there will be
>something in cygwin32 in the future that will address your desire, Rome
>wasn't built in a day. And since there are other environments out
there
>that would address the concern you have, I personally think the initial
>goal Cygnus targeted with this environment is the correct one, at least
in
>regards to the market which desires to quickly and easily port software
from
>UNIX to Windows. I think they have done allot to achieve that. As
always,
>there is more to do. However, while it may be useful to state
particular
>desires for enhancements and such, claiming that what is there now is
not
>useful is overstating it. Opening up yet another debate about what
makes a
>useful environment for Windows is not relevant. There are many out
there.
>If this one doesn't serve your purpose at the moment, try a different
one
>or make your own.
>
>Larry Hall lhall@rfk.com
>RFK Partners, Inc. (781) 239-1053
>8 Grove Street (781) 239-1655 - FAX
>Wellesley, MA 02181
>
>-
Bravo!
- \\||//
---o0O0--Earnie--0O0o----
-earnie_boyd@hotmail.com-
------ooo0O--O0ooo-------
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".