On Sep 20 05:33, Tim Prince wrote:
> Lapo Luchini wrote:
>
> >Tim Prince wrote:
> >
> >>I am aware of that policy, that no fix will be made to support such
> >>software. Just thought there might be a work-around. If not, I will
> >>consider Vista broken.
> >
> >
> >FWIW, it seems to run fine on
Lapo Luchini wrote:
Tim Prince wrote:
>I am aware of that policy, that no fix will be made to support such
>software. Just thought there might be a work-around. If not, I will
>consider Vista broken.
FWIW, it seems to run fine on WinXP x64.
(in fact, I used it for a month now)
Yes, conside
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Prince wrote:
> I am aware of that policy, that no fix will be made to support such
> software. Just thought there might be a work-around. If not, I will
> consider Vista broken.
FWIW, it seems to run fine on WinXP x64.
(in fact, I used it for a
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Sep 18 13:27, Tim Prince wrote:
I can't get bash to run, using the standard installation. I tried all
the compatibility modes, with and without the addition of syswow64 to
the shortcut. Failure mode is different in the win9x modes from the
others. Any more su
On Sep 18 13:27, Tim Prince wrote:
> I can't get bash to run, using the standard installation. I tried all
> the compatibility modes, with and without the addition of syswow64 to
> the shortcut. Failure mode is different in the win9x modes from the
> others. Any more suggestions?
See http:/
I can't get bash to run, using the standard installation. I tried all
the compatibility modes, with and without the addition of syswow64 to
the shortcut. Failure mode is different in the win9x modes from the
others. Any more suggestions?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsu
6 matches
Mail list logo
