Firefox and Cygwin

[Database Administrator]

Robert Heller wrote:
>> >
>> Well, considering that POSIX specifically applies to Unix-like OS's
>> ther's no reason in the world why it should apply to OS's that
>> are not unix-like
>>
>> then also, since Linux is not POSIX compliant, are you saying that
>
> Huh? I believe Linux IS POSIX compliant, probably more so than many
> *commercial* UNIXes.
>
You would think so, what with all the "standards" discussions,
but it isn't. Start with wikipedia for references or go right
to POSIX home.

Commercial Unixes are 100% POSIX compliant and have been
for a long time. Linux is not. Interestingly, Windows is
also 100% compliant with SFU installed. Go figure.

Stan
--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com

[Database Administrator]

Stan writes:
> Commercial Unixes are 100% POSIX compliant and have been for a long time.

Commercial Unixes are _certified_ as 100% POSIX compliant.

> Linux is not _certified_.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[Database Administrator]

On 2007-07-19, LEE Sau Dan wrote:
>>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Espen writes:
>
> Dan> I'm using Linux, I can run Firefox but I can't run Cygwin and
> Dan> I couldn't do a Cygwin port.
>
> Yes, you can. If you want, you may try running Cygwin under Windows
> inside a virtual machine (e.g. VMWare).

That presupposes that Dan has a copy of Windows, and runs linux on x86-
compatible hardware (I'm on linux-ppc right now).

> Dan> So the way I see it, it's more of a Windows question than a
> Dan> Linux question.
>
> It's a Cygwin question.

Well, it's not a linux question, which was my original point.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[Database Administrator]

Keith Keller writes:

> On 2007-07-19, LEE Sau Dan wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Espen writes:
>>
>> Dan> I'm using Linux, I can run Firefox but I can't run Cygwin and
>> Dan> I couldn't do a Cygwin port.
^^^
Hmm, Supercite? Never could get used to it.

>> Yes, you can. If you want, you may try running Cygwin under Windows
>> inside a virtual machine (e.g. VMWare).
>
> That presupposes that Dan has a copy of Windows, and runs linux on x86-
> compatible hardware (I'm on linux-ppc right now).

I have the hardware, but no copy of Windows.
Of course I don't have VMWare either.

But for me, that's not the point.
If I had VWWare and Windows I still wouldn't install it.
Windows gives me the creeps.
I don't like running stuff that hides what it's doing from me.

>> Dan> So the way I see it, it's more of a Windows question than a
>> Dan> Linux question.
>>
>> It's a Cygwin question.
>
> Well, it's not a linux question, which was my original point.

And you were so right.

[Database Administrator]

In comp.os.linux.misc Hadron :
> Dan Espen writes:

>> Hadron writes:

>>> Keith Keller writes:

>>>> On 2007-07-18, Yves-Alain.Nicollet@bull.net wrote:
>>>>> Has anyone out there ever ported Firefox to Cygwin as an X11 client?
>>>>> Why is it so difficult to find the "best rated web browser" built in
>>>>> the Xwindow environnement?

>>>> Do you have a *linux* question?

>>> That is a Linux question.

>> Really? In what sense?

> Because cygwin is a Linux like environment?

No not really, it is just some Unix environment for doze.

> I stand to be corrected if you think the link is too tenuous.

I think the question is completly strange, why would you run ff
in cygwin + doze, when you can simply download the doze version?

Though one could try the windos version in wine which would be as
strange? Perhaps some kind of web pages testing with various
browser? I'd strongly suggest some live distro like Knoppix.
Fonts and alike can make a big difference and you are running on
top of the windoze GUI but not a native X11.

--
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 78: Yes, yes, its called a design limitation

[Database Administrator]

Robert Heller wrote:
> No, cygwin is a POSIX+X11 environment, i.e. generally *UNIX*-like, but
> it only makes sense under MS-Windows (the *only* major O/S that is NOT
> a POSIX+X11 environment).

For sake of accuracy, even though it is a "who cares": if you
consider that Windows with SFU ( free download ) is POSIX
compliant, that all commercial Unixes are, even MAC OSX is,

the *only* major OS that is NOT POSIX is ... Linux!
( look it up-- Linux is not compliant and not certified -
developers have made concious choices to not comply )

But, like I said-- who cares.

Stan
--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com

[Database Administrator]

On Jul 18, 3:54 pm, Robert Heller wrote:
>
> The question remains: what exactly would be the advantage of a version
> of Firefox built in Cygwin under MS-Windows?

I posted the OP and will answer this question.

Before, I apologize for having started such a long discussion: it was
not in my intention.

Then, I apologize too for the late answer, but I've been out of the
office for some time.

Ah, yes, the answer...

I have been using several flavours of Un*x for about 20 years and am
quite good at it,
as a user as well as an admin.
But lately I changed job and had to use a PC because my new job
requires using a lot of
Windoze apps.
And since I don't like working with W, I am trying to recreate my
personal working
environment (mail, web browsing, etc.) in Cygwin.
Now, the question about what group I should have posted my question
to: I also posted
to the Cygwin and Firefox groups, because, IMO, it is relevant in each
and every of them.

But still, could someone answer the original question?

Thanks.

[Database Administrator]

On 2007-08-02, Yves-Alain.Nicollet@bull.net wrote:
> Now, the question about what group I should have posted my question
> to: I also posted
> to the Cygwin and Firefox groups, because, IMO, it is relevant in each
> and every of them.

It is *not* relevant in a linux group! And you've compounded your error
by multiposting your question (which, if those other groups were really
mailing lists or web forums, you couldn't help, but you should have
mentioned the resources you'd tried, and you also should have waited for
responses from one group before heading off to another).

Still, I'll be exceedingly generous, and ask, can you justify why you
believe a question about three Windows applications is possibly on-topic
in a linux newsgroup? "Because Firefox and X11 are also linux apps,
and Cygwin emulates a POSIX environment" is *not* a good enough answer!

> But still, could someone answer the original question?

Did someone answer it in one of the groups where it's actually on-topic?

If you really want it, build it yourself. Questions about building it
are also not on-topic in colm, despite the fact that gcc runs on linux.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[Babydole123]

I came across this forum by chance and discovered this is one of the best thread ever. Thanks u guys so much for the information you give. So cool.




taux pret automobile comparatif credit auto voiture simulationUne simulation credit auto instannee et facile ici si vous avez une voituretaux pret automobile comparatif credit auto voiture simulation