RE: Big Brother is Real

[Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>]

Note that the below was a general statement about API changes, not even
referring to XP64 specifically.  I do not use the newest Windows, and
don't have enough expertise to reason about the specific API changes.
These changes do happen (otherwise Cygwin wouldn't have to be "ported" to
the newer versions of Windows), but, FWIW, I highly doubt that they are
introduced to deliberately stifle *Cygwin* development.  Just wanted to
make this clear.
	Igor

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Stephan Mueller wrote:

> Can someone elaborate on exactly which APIs have changed incompatibly
> (in 64-bit Windows)?
>
> I'm only mildly familiar with the 64-bit story, but my understanding is
> that the the 64-bit APIs are basically the same as 32-bit (with the
> natural widening of types) but given that the 64-bit API is 'new' in
> that there's no legacy (shipped, binary) code base to support, this is
> probably the best time to make API changes (in 64-bit) that repair bad
> design decisions and bad interface bugs and so made earlier (in 32-bit
> API, or maybe even 16-bit).
>
> Regardless, how does this affect Cygwin at all?  The 32-bit subsystem on
> 64-bit Windows OSes should run 32-bit apps with no semantic changes --
> that's its job, and I would be surprised if the behaviour of any 32-bit
> APIs was gratuitously different (although it's possible there are bugs
> -- worth reporting if that's the case).
>
> If you're trying to compile cygwin itself for 64-bit, well, you may need
> to make some cygwin source changes with #ifdefs, yes -- is that the
> objection here?
>
> stephan();
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner at cygwin dot com [mailto:cygwin-owner at cygwin dot com] On Behalf
> Of Igor Pechtchanski
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 8:31 AM
> To: Andrew DeFaria
> Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
> Subject: Re: Big Brother is Real
>
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
> > Tim Prince wrote:
> >
> > > Lack of cygwin support has impeded the market penetration of Windows
> > > XP64, but it seems Microsoft would rather lose out to linux and HPUX
> > > than let their customers run cygwin. It may be they don't understand
> > > how many customers depend on cygwin, which is their fault too, since
> > > they don't support those customers, just collect the fees and forget
> > > them.
> >
> > How exactly does Microsoft stop their customers from running Cygwin?
> > I'm curious because as you even admit "many customers depend on
> > cygwin" so it is demonstrable that Microsoft has no power to stop
> > their customers from running Cygwin.
>
> Microsoft doesn't "stop their customers from running Cygwin", it
> introduces API changes that are incompatible with previous versions, and
> thus cause programs like Cygwin to not run.  Whether this is deliberate
> or accidental remains debatable.
>         Igor

-- 
				http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
      |\      _,,,---,,_		pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_		igor at watson dot ibm dot com
     |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'-'		Igor Pechtchanski
    '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) fL	a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-.  Meow!

Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty.
  -- Leto II


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/