--- Larry Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:12 PM 1/19/2004, Andrew DeFaria you wrote:
> >Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin
> users there are compared with NT and greater?
>
> No, not that has been reported to this list anyway.
It seems to me that if you want to get a fai
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gmane.os.cygwin as well.
> * Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-20 12:13:36 -0500]:
>
>>> > I wonder how close to an approximation of reality a simple
>>> > poll/form on the cygwin.com front page would gen
> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> I guess I'll keep making the observation that any poll would
> be worthless as long as people seem to be ignoring that fact
> and still coming up with alternate ways of polling.
AFAIC the discussion has long s
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:23:47AM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: cygwin-ownercygwincom On Behalf Of Brian Dessent
> ^^
>Hmmm?
>
>> > Larry Hall wrote:
>> >
>> > > >Has anybody
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Dave Korn wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: cygwin-ownercygwincom On Behalf Of Brian Dessent
^^
Hmmm?
> > Larry Hall wrote:
> >
> > > >Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users
> > there are compared with NT
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Dessent
> Larry Hall wrote:
>
> > >Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users
> there are compared with NT and greater?
> >
> > No, not that has been reported to this list anyway.
>
> I wonder how close
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:21:41PM -0500, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:36:42PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:12:25PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
There would certainly be a real detriment in the fact that cygwi
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:36:42PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:12:25PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> >Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>There would certainly be a real detriment in the fact that cygwin
> >>would stop working for Windows 95/98/Me. If we could focus ju
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:12:25PM -0800, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>There would certainly be a real detriment in the fact that cygwin
>>would stop working for Windows 95/98/Me. If we could focus just on NT
>>class systems, there is all sorts of improvements that we could
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:41:13PM -0800, Brian Dessent wrote:
>Larry Hall wrote:
>>>Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are
>>>compared with NT and greater?
>>
>>No, not that has been reported to this list anyway.
>
>I wonder how close to an approximation of reality a s
Larry Hall wrote:
> >Has anybody actually measured how many 9x/Me Cygwin users there are compared with
> >NT and greater?
>
> No, not that has been reported to this list anyway.
I wonder how close to an approximation of reality a simple poll/form on
the cygwin.com front page would generate?
B
At 07:12 PM 1/19/2004, Andrew DeFaria you wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:37:27PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
>>
>>>The newly released Microsoft Services For Unix (SFU v3.5) includes a new "highly
>>>tuned" POSIX subsystem. MS says that UNIX apps using the POSIX subsy
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:37:27PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
The newly released Microsoft Services For Unix (SFU v3.5) includes a
new "highly tuned" POSIX subsystem. MS says that UNIX apps using the
POSIX subsystem are within 10% performance of Windows apps using the
W
At 03:37 PM 1/19/2004, Dax Kelson you wrote:
>The newly released Microsoft Services For Unix (SFU v3.5) includes a new
>"highly tuned" POSIX subsystem. MS says that UNIX apps using the POSIX
>subsystem are within 10% performance of Windows apps using the Win32
>subsystem. The security models also w
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:37:27PM -0700, Dax Kelson wrote:
>The newly released Microsoft Services For Unix (SFU v3.5) includes a new
>"highly tuned" POSIX subsystem. MS says that UNIX apps using the POSIX
>subsystem are within 10% performance of Windows apps using the Win32
>subsystem. The securit
The newly released Microsoft Services For Unix (SFU v3.5) includes a new
"highly tuned" POSIX subsystem. MS says that UNIX apps using the POSIX
subsystem are within 10% performance of Windows apps using the Win32
subsystem. The security models also work together so that chmod/chown/su
and friends a
16 matches
Mail list logo
