From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" Date: 2006-10-27T09:34:28+09:00 Subject: Re: How do I tell when I'm on Cygwin? Robert Oliver wrote: > On 10/26/06, Austin Ziegler wrote: >> >> Then why do you use Windows at all? Obviously, it's a machine that >> you've made the choice to run Windows on and it's one that you control >> (because you've got Cygwin on there). > > > We still live in a Windows world. I use Linux heavily as well, but I have > machines that run Windows. On them, I like to install Cygwin. :) > > I'm really honestly truly not understanding why you're not just giving >> Windows the heave-ho and settling with an inferior replica on Windows. > > > We can debate all day about Cygwin is inferiority or not, but it is what it > is, and if its the right tool for the job for me then it makes sense that I > use it. > Well ... since I'm the one who started this ... 1. Last night, I think I put to rest the claim that the one-click Ruby is slower than the CygWin Ruby. At least on my matrix benchmark, it's a dead heat -- they're the same speed for all practical purposes. 2. I agree with Austin ... there's no excuse for using CygWin as a Windows development tool set. And I fully expect his efforts to get a native Microsoft tool set capable of doing everything Ruby needs to bear fruit. 3. I run CygWin on my Windows machines out of laziness, and because the Windows command line tools weren't always as good as they are now. If something *can* be done with native Windows tools, I generally do it that way. 4. A full CygWin install, including X, has a *lot* of good stuff in it. Both LyX and TeXmacs are there now, the Singular math package, should you care about such exotic stuff, apache, PostgreSQL, etc. The CygWin community is a vigorous one, and one I think is worthy of support. 5. CygWin has a *lot* less overhead than VMware. 6. Sometimes I need to use an open-source package that hasn't attracted the volunteers necessary to get a native Windows build. Nearly anything like that will build and run on CygWin.