Post #135,935
1/15/04 6:08:12 PM
|
Re: SFU - Use or not?
Do NOT use Cygwin on production Windows boxes. If you live in Windows, then you'll just have to live with the bad consequences.
-drl
|
Post #135,936
1/15/04 6:12:00 PM
|
Never had a problem with that here.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #135,945
1/15/04 6:48:24 PM
|
It's not that it's buggy or junky
It's just too big a hole in a Windows system, and the way it installs prevents it from being very useful in the Windows framework anyway. You end up with a Siamese twin system.
There was some product called "UNIX for Windows" that was a better stab at an impossible problem. On Windows you're just stuck with a bad idiom so you might as well learn to think in Windese.
-drl
|
Post #135,947
1/15/04 6:53:27 PM
|
I completely disagree.
Cygwin is a great tool, used daily here. What are your specific objections?
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #135,951
1/15/04 7:05:16 PM
|
Re: I completely disagree.
Whatever I used it for, I would think - why am I doing this from this Windows box? I'll just telnet from UNIX and do it there (mainly file moving and intranet updates). The better solution was to ditch the Windows server and put in Linux Samba DCs. I always had the feeling that any task that Cygwin was useful for, was not "essential" and could be done another way without maintaining a giant Cygwin goiter.
Then I just thought - well, I'll keep it because it's nice to have grep. But it was more useful to have a Win32 grep that ran from cmd.exe. I could never identify a reason to keep it around because the type of things it was good for, could be handled with console programs for Win32. It was better to know how to make minor mods to a Windows server to get some of the same usefulness of the CLI tools in Linux.
Bottom line - if your Windows server has become essentially dependent on Cygwin to work, why not replace it with a real Linux box? It's sort of the same argument against dual booting.
-drl
|
Post #135,958
1/15/04 7:16:40 PM
|
I dunno
I use emx extensively (it's the posic compatibility layer for OS/2; you can get it from Hobbes). Mind you, you can use any of the tools from any shell, including cmd.exe...
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #135,964
1/15/04 7:26:12 PM
|
Re: I dunno
Right, that was a little different because EMX seemed more tightly bound to the OS/2 idiom. No doubt this is because OS/2 is scriptable in the first place with REXX, and OS/2 has a native console mode. Plus, the compiler was nice to have around.
-drl
|
Post #135,965
1/15/04 7:27:35 PM
|
It is nice to have around
in fact, for me, it's now completely necessary. My current project is porting the Hugs haskell interpreter, which unfortunately isn't going well due to some make file nastiness I haven't figured out yet.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #135,968
1/15/04 7:34:25 PM
|
And so you've answered my main objection
You have an essential use for it - that doesn't surprise me, because it was clear to me that EMX became a "part" of OS/2, not a pseudo-emulator. I think this says more about OS/2 than it does about EMX.
-drl
|
Post #135,971
1/15/04 7:40:44 PM
|
BTW
If you have a makefile issue you can't figure out, bitter experience tells me to examine all the make default behaviors.
-drl
|
Post #136,012
1/15/04 10:13:39 PM
|
Er...
1) Not everyone has the luxury of being able to just replace a Windows box. I wish. Our boxes are special purpose, not file servers or web servers.
2) The boxes aren't dependent on Cygwin to work. Cygwin is there for the tools.
3) bash beats cmd.exe any day of the century. As does find beat anything Windows can dish up.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #136,057
1/16/04 9:22:32 AM
|
Re: Er...
I can't disagree with anything you say - but it's moot, because I'm coming from a philosophy that tells me to live in the system that you're living in.
-drl
|
Post #135,939
1/15/04 6:20:13 PM
|
Huh?
Does this means that without Cygwin, there are bad consequences and the fact I use windows I deserve them, and that I am not allowed to ease my pain with Cygwin, or something else?
Either way, I will not be requesting a Cygwin install on all the servers. SFU possibly, but not Cygwin. If SFU ever actually finishes installing for me to test on my laptop, that is. Just got past "Updating security information". It had been on that screen for about an hour. I thought it was hung but there was disk activity.
|
Post #135,940
1/15/04 6:22:57 PM
|
ARRGG!!
It kicked out a message concerning "something" failing to complete during the install and that I should contact my support or vendor. It is now "Rolling back".
Just kill me now.
You know this laptop is trashed.
|
Post #136,005
1/15/04 9:45:34 PM
|
I am not sure it's wise
Cygwin is one shared DLL + some registry and a lot of files.
SFU, if I know anything about MS Way, is a bunch of device drivers and who knows what else.
I think Cygwing is safer by far.
--
"It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)"
-- James Lileks
|
Post #136,009
1/15/04 9:54:59 PM
|
BTW,
if you decide to install, add
CYGWIN=tty
to your system environment. It enables enhanced support for tty device in Cygwin. Without it, Cygwin's emacs is quite unusable. With it some old windows programs break. Take your pick.
--
"It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)"
-- James Lileks
|
Post #135,944
1/15/04 6:44:30 PM
|
Oh hush.
You'll have to come up with more than that if you want to be taken seriously.
Given that Cygwin lives in its own directory tree and that removing said tree deletes it from your system save a couple of innocuous registry keys, what's the harm?
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
|
Post #135,946
1/15/04 6:50:01 PM
|
Re: Oh hush.
Not harm - more like "What's the use?" The very fact that it is so divorced from the Windows shell makes it more or less like an emulator - that is, not very useful.
-drl
|
Post #135,949
1/15/04 6:54:11 PM
|
It's worth having just for awk
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
|
Post #135,950
1/15/04 7:01:32 PM
|
Or find. Or grep. Or ls. Or...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #135,952
1/15/04 7:06:22 PM
|
Re: It's worth having just for awk
So I thought as well, but see my response to Scott.
-drl
|
Post #135,954
1/15/04 7:08:18 PM
|
I see that.
However, SFU is a piss-poor toolchain compared to Cygwin (go look in the bin directories if you don't believe me), doesn't come with XFree86, doesn't come with TeTeX (if you're into that sort of thing) and until today, wasn't at all free.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
|
Post #135,955
1/15/04 7:13:00 PM
|
Re: I see that.
I don't even know what SFU is!
There are native versions of TeX for Win32. If you really need Windows to do TeX, get Windows TeX. (Why waste your money though? Get a Linux box and do it there.)
Call it "Ross' rule of OS isolation". I remember going through a manic phase of porting UNIX tools to VMS. Then I realized I wasn't using any of the things I moved over because I was thinking in VMS and used the VMS tools.
-drl
|
Post #135,959
1/15/04 7:20:13 PM
|
Well, Greg taught me
STFU JA.
Which is close enough.
In this case.
Windows Services for Unix.
|
Post #135,963
1/15/04 7:23:36 PM
|
Re: Well, Greg taught me
The useful stuff in that (from the Windows viewpoint) is already in Windows 2000 and XP (telnet server and UNIX print interoperability).
-drl
|
Post #135,966
1/15/04 7:29:41 PM
|
Windows telnet server is unusably slow.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
|
Post #135,970
1/15/04 7:35:32 PM
|
? how can a telnet server be "slow"?
You mean latency with keyboard actions? I did notice that IIRC, but it wasn't "unusable".
-drl
|
Post #135,981
1/15/04 8:48:59 PM
|
It can be slow...
Just because you understand what it is doing, doesn;t mean W2K or W2K3 can understand and reply as quickly as you would think.
If you ain't using "Windows Telnet" (piece of crap), the speed-ups they built into it (telnet) do not work. Same type of things they do for IE and IIS.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
"Lately, The only thing keeping me from being a
Serial Killer is my distaste for manual labor."
-- Dilbert Calendar, January 4, 2004
|
Post #135,979
1/15/04 8:46:28 PM
|
Bwahahaha, Love it.
I'd have to disagree with Ross.
Cygwin Does indeed have a Great Tool chain.
The reason you don't install Linux... is because you can't. Production machine are not sunk costs, you have to protect the investment value. You can not just yank a machine that has a Windows Product on it and put in a Linux machine. But, you could get away with Cygwin quite easily. It is typically smaller than Office. Will give you a "Real Code/Text Editor" too.
Cygwin being so Divorced is about as divorced as things get on UNIX. One but Separate, Seperate but as one.
Personally, I think it gives you tools to do your job (more) easily. Best part is... They don't run in Ring Zero.
SFU, is just a Lazy(easy as in not fighting for it) way to get some *NIX functionality.
Hell, Barry install both... see which one you end up using more. I know Cygwin ain't easy to justify, but the ability to install it *AND* get rid of it without "rebooting" has got to be very convincing.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
"Lately, The only thing keeping me from being a
Serial Killer is my distaste for manual labor."
-- Dilbert Calendar, January 4, 2004
|
Post #136,008
1/15/04 9:46:31 PM
|
Nothing special about windows shell
You run cmd.exe, I run bash.exe. What's the difference?
--
"It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)"
-- James Lileks
|
Post #136,058
1/16/04 9:25:08 AM
|
Re: Nothing special about windows shell
If I go to company X and am stuck with Windows, I can put my console tools in my home directory and still use them.
You misunderstand - I agree that he UNIX tools are great, and Windows would be better with such things already present, but I'm convinced that painted-on functionality is a bad idea.
-drl
|
Post #136,101
1/16/04 11:49:27 AM
|
I was trying to say
that cmd.exe is as "pinted on" as bash.exe, Cygwin's default shell.
There are other shells for windows as well, although the names escape me at the moment.
--
"It\ufffds possible to build a reasonably prosperous society that invests in its people, doesn\ufffdt invade its neighbors, opposes Israel and stands up to America. (Just look at France.)"
-- James Lileks
|
