>Ty Sarna writes:
>> On the other hand, if one has to run Windows code anyway, having a
>> NetBSD subsystem could make it more comfortable.

>It has already been done, largely. See CygWin32.

I prefer OpenNT -- a full Unix subsystem for NT that replaces the
"Posix" subsystem (only NT, though, not other Windows systems
(i. e. not Win95)).  See http://www.softway.com/.

It would be cool to write a NetBSD system for NT that works the same
way, though Microsoft vows they won't tell anyone how to write a
subsystem.  I'm sure that goes double for free-ware...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Michael L. VanLoon                           michaelv@MindBender.serv.net
      Contract software development for Windows NT, Windows 95 and Unix.
             Windows NT and Unix server development in C++ and C.

        --<  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x  >--
    NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3,
        Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32...
    NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------