for the two or three people left running SUA, and trying to rsync a UNIX box back on a corporate Windows server, you’ll probably wonder why rsync crashes…
$ ./rsync dbserver:: Memory fault (core dumped) $
Wonderful. Â So I know what you’re thinking, let’s debug it, right?!
$ gdb rsync
GNU gdb 2002-11-11-cvs Copyright 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. Type “show copying” to see the conditions. There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type “show warranty” for details. This GDB was configured as “i586-pc-interix3″…
(gdb) set args dbserver::
(gdb) r
Starting program: /dev/fs/C/Users/neozeed/tmp/rsync-3.1.0/rsync dbserver:: procfs: init_inferior, get_traced_signals line 4856, /proc/1375: Value too large to be stored in data type.
Yeah. Fantastic.
Well it turns out the bundled libintl on Interix is all screwed up. Â So edit the config.h, and remove the line:
#define HAVE_ICONV_H 1
rebuild, and all will be well.
I actually use SUA quite a lot. I miss Unix environment from Mac OS X on the PC and SUA works for most stuff. I’ve tried Mingw but it’s not as good.
SUA is very fast too, as it’s an NT subsytem, unlike cygwin which is a Win32 DLL… From my understanding there is no more SFU/SUA for Windows 8. Which would be a shame.
Windows 8 is lacking a lot of other things, like the Start menu. Looks like I’ll be stuck with Win7 for quite a while.
I haven’t seen a compelling reason to bother with 8 or 8.1… I guess the sad thing is that I just don’t care about Windows anymore. Much like the ramp up to Windows 9, really who cares?
I guess the larger problem is basically since Windows XP for the AMD64 there hasn’t been a compelling version of Windows since. The only reason why WindowsXP on 64bit CPU’s doesn’t have a larger share is how MS twisted arms with people releasing device drivers. Just as Windows server 2008/v2 & 2012 aren nothing more than total busts. 2003 was the best windows server, bar none. But I guess that’s me, 2003 was basically as good as things got for Microsoft.
“Just as Windows server 2008/v2 & 2012 aren nothing more than total busts. ”
Huh?
Have you seen any compelling reason to use them? I sure haven’t.
I thought you mean they completely failed to catch on, which isn’t true.
Sure people install 2008 because of hardware/.net stuff, but really I haven’t seen any compelling features. I guess the x64 stuff on 2003 & SQL 2005 was all I needed.
I think it is still there in the enterprise edition but “depreciated”.
Agreed haha. It’s funny because Server 2003 x64 has been a good upgrade path for power workstations. I know quite a lot of people using 2003 x64 on desktops because XP x64 sucked and refusing to go 7. I’m easier and I actually run Windows 7 with classic desktop, SUA and XP mode aka VirtualPC. Windows 8.x or Office 2013 is horrible and I refuse to use it.
XP x64 only ‘sucked’ because MS pulled the rug out from under it when Vista shipped. 2003 was the last time people were involved in the QA and unit test process at Microsoft as well. After that it went to automation, and well we can see how that all went to hell.
XP x64 only ‘sucked’ because MS pulled the rug out from under it when Vista shipped.
What is fun is that this is why officially XP x64 and Server 2003 x64 have different support lifecycles despite the fact that they are really based on the same codebase. And they allow only a minimum of two years after a new version release before the previous version goes into extended support (which lasts for another five years). And of course this is despite the fact that Vista RTM had plenty of problems, and Server 2008 is based on Vista SP1 which fixed many of them.
“XP” x64 is just another edition of Server 2003 x64.
yep!
Technically this is correct, except, Server 2003 x64 had R2 edition that XP x64 does not. The R2 edition is much improved and has support for much never hardware.
I thought the R2 edition was basically an add-on to plain 2003 adding things like SUA.
Me too. I know disc 1 of r2 and 2003 x64 sure looked the same… Now I need to look to see if I still have access to 2003 x64 & 2003 x64 r2..
Well they look the same, but they will have different versions of components. There were some massive difference in HAL between R1 and R2. I remember there was an issue running XP under Hyper-v. It was dog slow and CPU hog. Because of some HAL issues XP was almost unusable whereas 2003 R2 was working perfectly fine.