| |||||||||||||
ummm, already existsummm, already existsPosted Feb 25, 2005 0:42 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: ummm, already exists by iabervon Parent article: How to Kill Linux (PC Magazine) It's the usual GNU/Linux vs. Linux ambiguity. The author clearly meant keeping the userland of GNU/Linux, which is what Cygwin essentially does (they've ported a lot more than just libc!), as opposed to the Linux kernel sans drivers.
(Log in to post comments)
ummm, already exists Posted Feb 25, 2005 4:53 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Well, the GNU/Linux debate is one thing, but if you leave out all of Linux proper, it doesn't make sense to call the remainder "Linux". Has Cygwin actually ported much more than libc? I thought it was mostly a sufficiently good port of libc that most programs would just build against it as if it was a generic UNIX, plus an actual port of X, and probably some autoconf stuff. Certainly the code that I've written that builds under Cygwin doesn't require anything unusual other than the appropriate GCC flags, and some weirdness in the Makefile to deal with the funny filenames of executables.
Of course, in addition to being the code that the Cygwin people wrote, it's also a package system and a distribution, which makes it hard to tell what they needed to modify and what they've just built for you without any changes.
|
|||||||||||||