From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2006-10-27T07:44:05+09:00 Subject: Re: How do I tell when I'm on Cygwin? On 10/26/06, Robert Dober wrote: > On 10/26/06, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > On 10/26/06, Chris Lowis wrote: > > > Austin Ziegler wrote: > > > > (I don't know; I stopped using Cygwin as soon as I > > > > found more useful tools that didn't require the whole bloody > > > > framework). > > > Slightly off-topic, but I'd be really interested to hear of your > > > alternatives to Cygwin. Having to install the whole cygwin framework is > > > a pain, but I do like having ruby, irb, openssh, latex, and all the > > > usual GNU tools available through a _bash_ shell on Windows. > > The bash shell isn't necessary on Windows (not if you know how to use > > the existing command shell well enough or you use something like Total > > Commander, like I do). I don't use openssh on Windows, I use PuTTY. I > > have most of the GNU tools that I need through GnuWin32. I use a > > native TeX build. > These are all very nice and honerable tools but I go with the folks who, > like me, feel that is too much pain to learn too many tools, I love bash, I > need to learn zsh for professional reasons, and I have sooo many other > interesting stuff I cannot even read about. I simply do not understand that. I *cannot* understand that. It essentially boils down to "I don't want to know anything about this platform that I must use." I am equally comfortable in Unix and Windows -- and the longtime Mac folks who were at RubyConf this past weekend can tell you how quickly I've adapted to the Mac in just two months (with some things that I have yet to find a comfortable replacement for). When I had to use VMS, I made sure that I *understood* it (even though I thought its command-line shell was crap). The *only* time I do something different is when I install bash on the four Unix-style platforms for which I develop if they don't already have it. Why? Because I wrote my build drivers using bash conventions. It'd be no different than if I'd written the build drivers with Ruby (then I wouldn't care what shell people used). > I guess Cygwin is better than you present it, especially if you can go for a > slim install. Now when it comes to X, I completely agree with your POV. It's not better, even with a slim install. (Although, the 1Gb my Cygwin directory used to take up was nice to get back when I finally got rid of it.) Cygwin is supposed to be a narrow solution, e.g., I have to use Windows but I also *must* use this Unix software that has not yet been ported to Windows (or cannot be ported to Windows or won't be ported to Windows because the developers are asinine platform bigots). > But maybe the *real* discussion is about Windows, I use Cygwin to *forget > that Window even exists* it is a therapy for me. That's the problem, then. If you want to forget Windows even exists when you're using Windows, why the HELL are you using Windows in the first place? If your workplace requires that you use Windows, then install coLinux and be done with it. Otherwise, install Linux or FreeBSD or something else on your machine and stop pretending you're using Unix. If you can't stand working in the Windows cmd.exe, spend the money to get TotalCommander or Directory Opus. I personally prefer TC on Windows, but others swear by DOpus. I am basically at the command-line to run specific scripts which don't pause when finished. I rarely navigate directories by the command-line (I will usually navigate with TC and then run cmd.exe if I need a command window). Your quote ("The reasonable man adapts himself...") is somewhat apt. However, you're not going to change Windows by being unreasonable on Windows (e.g., expecting Unix behaviour to mesh well); others won't change Linux by being unreasonable on Linux (e.g., running WINE). Better to deal with things as they are if you must deal with an operating system you do not prefer. -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/ * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ * austin@zieglers.ca