[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [h-e-w] no C-spc
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: [h-e-w] no C-spc |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:56:24 +0200 |
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:39:22 -0000
> From: "Dallman, John" <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>,
> <address@hidden>
>
> If you try to hit the keyboard hardware directly, under either
> Windows or Linux, the OS will stop you.
Every operating system also has ways to circumvent that, though. And
Windows XP is no exception.
I think Cygwin doesn't do it because it's simply unjustified: modern
Windows systems have enough features that allow to implement a Posix
layer above them without the need to bypass them.
But we are wandering off the topic, I think.
- Re: [h-e-w] no C-spc, (continued)
Re: [h-e-w] no C-spc, David Vanderschel, 2007/01/22
- RE: [h-e-w] no C-spc, Francis Wright, 2007/01/23
- Re: [h-e-w] no C-spc, Ryan Krauss, 2007/01/25
- RE: [h-e-w] no C-spc, Francis Wright, 2007/01/25
- Re: [h-e-w] no C-spc, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/01/26
- RE: [h-e-w] no C-spc, Francis Wright, 2007/01/26
- Re: [h-e-w] no C-spc, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/01/26
- RE: [h-e-w] no C-spc, Dallman, John, 2007/01/26
- Re: [h-e-w] no C-spc,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: [h-e-w] no C-spc, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/01/26
- RE: [h-e-w] no C-spc, Stephen F. Heffner, 2007/01/26
Re: [h-e-w] no C-spc, Eli Zaretskii, 2007/01/26