Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > On Tue, 7 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It'd be worth trying to understand cygwin issues in detail before we
> >> sign up to do and support a native Windows port.
>
> > Actually, there are licensing issues involved ... we could never put a
> > 'windows binary' up for anon-ftp, since to distribute it would require the
> > cygwin.dll to be distributed, and to do that, there is a licensing cost
> > ... of course, I guess we could require ppl to download cygwin seperately,
> > install that, then install the binary over top of that ...
>
> <<itch>> And how much development time are we supposed to expend to
> avoid that?
>
> Give me a technical case for avoiding Cygwin, and maybe I can get
> excited about it. I'm not planning to lift a finger on the basis
> of licensing though... after all, Windows users are accustomed to
> paying for software, no?
Nobody asked you to lift any of your fingers. A few people (including me) just see value in a native
Windows port, kicking out the Cygwin requirement.
I have the impression you never did use Cygwin. I did, thanks but no thanks.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
