[snip] > We are not going to visit the slippery slope of adding code to Cygwin > to work around other third party software.
I'm hoping and assuming it is going to be more a matter of making minor changes, if it requires a major change, then it is more likely Microsoft or some other vendor is at fault. [snip] > >ZoneLabs offical stance is that they don't support emulated > >environments. Humm... So if neither are willing to change, then > >what? I don't know Symantec's or McAfee's offical stance. > > Cygwin is a program which uses standard the win32 api. The fact that > the win32 api is used to present a bash prompt is no different than > using the win32 api to present a word processor screen. Assuming that > the "emulated environment" above actually refers to Cygwin then > failure on Zonealarm's part to fix bugs that cause Cygwin's use of the > windows API to misbehave is an arbitrary distinction and a cop-out. Strongly agreed. I've already pointed this out to them to no avail. > >As far as coding being 'perfectly acceptable', that is a matter of > >point-of- view. If it causes such behavior, is it acceptable? > > It is not a matter of a point of view if code works as documented in a > virus-scanner-free environment and fails to work when a virus scanner > is installed. >From what I've been seeing, I'm starting to suspect that the problem(s) is there in both cases, the scanner simply makes it much more noticable. I do see more CPU consumption that I woud have expected even without the virus scanner and the original poster's calling out stat was most interesting. [snip] Brett ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brett C. Serkez, Techie -- 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/
