[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Another nail in CygWin's coffin (attached

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

10/27/2006 9:43:00 PM

Austin is basically right -- *nobody* should use CygWin as a Windows
development platform/IDE/whatever. And nobody should use CygWin for Ruby
or Rails work of any kind on a Windows platform, since everything you
need is available in native form (the One-Click installer, Instant
Rails, and a native Windows PostGreSQL).

However, someone (Larry Wall??) flagged laziness as a virtue, so I'll
ignore Austin's complaints about laziness and continue to use CygWin for
times when someone gives me 15 minutes to get a job done on a Windows
platform that would take me several hours or several days to do if I had to

a. Locate a native Windows tool to do it,
b. Install the Windows tool and
c. Learn how to use the Windows tool.

:)
10 Answers

Philip Hallstrom

10/27/2006 10:23:00 PM

0

hemant

10/28/2006 1:20:00 AM

0

On 10/28/06, Robert Oliver <rob@ocstech.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/06, Philip Hallstrom <ruby@philip.pjkh.com> wrote:
> >
> > I haven't followed this thred so don't know if it's been mentioned, but if
> > your stuck on windows and don't want to use native windows, maybe try
> > colinux?
>
>
> I believe coLinux was mentioned a few times in that thread ;)
>
> --
> Robert W. Oliver II
> President, OCS Solutions, Inc. - Web Hosting and Development
> http://www.ocssolu...
>
> Toll-Free Phone - 1-800-672-8415
>
> OCS Ruby Forums - http://www.rubyf...
> My Blog - http://www.rwo...
>
>

"Austin is basically right -- *nobody* should use CygWin as a Windows
development platform/IDE/whatever."

Why? I have a case, where my office PC has only Windows and my
development machines that stores the projects and where my programs
run is Linux machines and I access it remotely through samba/putty.

I use Emacs extensively, call me naive if you will...but i needed X
Window with Emacs for certain lisp packages that i use. Then i looked
into Windows version of Emacs.

1. I needed latest Emacs from CVS -meaning got to compile the thing
2. Tried using W32Emacs...but since it was a binary install...few of
my lisp packages refused to work.


I already had cygwin installed..so i took the plunge..and compiled
Emacs from CVS under cygwin and it works pretty nicely.

Though i agree, you can't use cygwin to host your RoR projects..even
in development. But its fine..if you are using it as a IDE/UNIX
toolchain.


--
There was only one Road; that it was like a great river: its springs
were at every doorstep, and every path was its tributary.

Tom Pollard

10/28/2006 3:35:00 PM

0


On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:43 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Austin is basically right -- *nobody* should use CygWin as a Windows
> development platform/IDE/whatever.

Actually, I think Cygwin is a pretty reasonable platform for porting
Unix apps to Windows. It made it possible for my company to use our
Unix build system (make files and shell scripts) under Windows more
or less directly, without any radical changes. Not having to
maintain separate Unix and Windows build systems is a huge plus and I
don't think it would have been possible without Cygwin. (...at least,
not without much more effort.) One big win is that Cygwin tools are
flexible about pathnames, and typically accept either Unix-style
(forward slashes), Windows-style (volume names and backslashes) and
mixed-format (volume names and forward slashes) pathnames. MS
Services for Unix, in particular, is much less flexible in this
regard, it would have required a lot more work to port our shell
scripts to SFU. If I was starting a fresh project, I might try to
use a higher-level language like Ruby as the engine for cross-
platform builds, but that's not the typical scenario, at least in our
business.

TomP

Austin Ziegler

10/28/2006 4:58:00 PM

0

On 10/28/06, Tom Pollard <tomp@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:43 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> > Austin is basically right -- *nobody* should use CygWin as a Windows
> > development platform/IDE/whatever.
> Actually, I think Cygwin is a pretty reasonable platform for porting
> Unix apps to Windows. It made it possible for my company to use our
> Unix build system (make files and shell scripts) under Windows more
> or less directly, without any radical changes.

So. Is your company's product open source? Because if it isn't, and
you're distributing it, you're violating the GNU GPL for Cygwin1.dll.
In other words, if you're distributing your software on Windows with
Cygwin, your software is now infected with the GNU GPL.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halo...
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halo...feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca

Tom Pollard

10/28/2006 5:33:00 PM

0


On Oct 28, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:

> On 10/28/06, Tom Pollard <tomp@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:43 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> > Austin is basically right -- *nobody* should use CygWin as a
>> Windows
>> > development platform/IDE/whatever.
>> Actually, I think Cygwin is a pretty reasonable platform for porting
>> Unix apps to Windows. It made it possible for my company to use our
>> Unix build system (make files and shell scripts) under Windows more
>> or less directly, without any radical changes.
>
> So. Is your company's product open source? Because if it isn't, and
> you're distributing it, you're violating the GNU GPL for Cygwin1.dll.

Thanks for your concern, but I didn't say we were using the Cygwin
DLL. We're using the Cygwin shell and Cygwin tools to build our
software as regular Win32 apps using Microsoft & Intel compilers;
there's no compatibility layer, beyond what we created ourselves (and
not much was required). The point was, Cygwin lets us do that with
the same build scripts and makefiles that we use for the Unix
builds. For the first Windows port we did, we used a Visual Studio
project that was maintained in parallel with the Unix makefiles; it
seemed like a good idea at the time, because it was the "Windows
way". It was a nightmare to maintain, however, and less transparent
and flexible than our Unix build system. Using Cygwin lets us work
from the same code base, using the same build system, on all
platforms. All of our Unix test scripts run under Cygwin, as well.
There was a little work required to get things to work seemlessly,
but it really works quite well. It's not perfect, and we've kept our
eyes open for better alternatives, but the ones we've looked at
seriously (like 'Services for Unix') seem to have worse problems than
the Cygwin-based system.

TomP

Reid Thompson

10/28/2006 5:39:00 PM

0

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 10/28/06, Tom Pollard <tomp@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 5:43 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> > Austin is basically right -- *nobody* should use CygWin as a Windows
>> > development platform/IDE/whatever.
>> Actually, I think Cygwin is a pretty reasonable platform for porting
>> Unix apps to Windows. It made it possible for my company to use our
>> Unix build system (make files and shell scripts) under Windows more
>> or less directly, without any radical changes.
>
> So. Is your company's product open source? Because if it isn't, and
> you're distributing it, you're violating the GNU GPL for Cygwin1.dll.
> In other words, if you're distributing your software on Windows with
> Cygwin, your software is now infected with the GNU GPL.
>
> -austin
Actually that would only be true if they were distributing it without a
cygwin license. RedHat does offer a license that allows redistribution
w/o requiring source code release.

Charles Oliver Nutter

10/28/2006 11:02:00 PM

0

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Austin is basically right -- *nobody* should use CygWin as a Windows
> development platform/IDE/whatever. And nobody should use CygWin for Ruby
> or Rails work of any kind on a Windows platform, since everything you
> need is available in native form (the One-Click installer, Instant
> Rails, and a native Windows PostGreSQL).
>
> However, someone (Larry Wall??) flagged laziness as a virtue, so I'll
> ignore Austin's complaints about laziness and continue to use CygWin for
> times when someone gives me 15 minutes to get a job done on a Windows
> platform that would take me several hours or several days to do if I had to
>
> a. Locate a native Windows tool to do it,
> b. Install the Windows tool and
> c. Learn how to use the Windows tool.

d. realize how maddeningly frustrating it is when the Windows tool is
only 80% correct in what it's doing and ultimately revert back to Cygwin.

There's also the Services for Unix, which provides a (very) limited set
of unixy tools, but when I'm stuck on Windows I too simply must have
cygwin. Anyone who believes there's a usable Windows equivalent for
every day-to-day unix CLI app is just plain wrong.

--
Charles Oliver Nutter, JRuby Core Developer
Blogging on Ruby and Java @ headius.blogspot.com
Help spec out Ruby today! @ www.headius.com/rubyspec
headius@headius.com -- charles.nutter@sun.com

Michal Suchanek

10/30/2006 3:05:00 PM

0

On 10/29/06, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> > Austin is basically right -- *nobody* should use CygWin as a Windows
> > development platform/IDE/whatever. And nobody should use CygWin for Ruby
> > or Rails work of any kind on a Windows platform, since everything you
> > need is available in native form (the One-Click installer, Instant
> > Rails, and a native Windows PostGreSQL).
> >
> > However, someone (Larry Wall??) flagged laziness as a virtue, so I'll
> > ignore Austin's complaints about laziness and continue to use CygWin for
> > times when someone gives me 15 minutes to get a job done on a Windows
> > platform that would take me several hours or several days to do if I had to
> >
> > a. Locate a native Windows tool to do it,
> > b. Install the Windows tool and
> > c. Learn how to use the Windows tool.
>
> d. realize how maddeningly frustrating it is when the Windows tool is
> only 80% correct in what it's doing and ultimately revert back to Cygwin.
>
> There's also the Services for Unix, which provides a (very) limited set
> of unixy tools, but when I'm stuck on Windows I too simply must have
> cygwin. Anyone who believes there's a usable Windows equivalent for
> every day-to-day unix CLI app is just plain wrong.
>

I use msys [1] when I want something like unix environment on Windows.
To me it looks lighter than cygwin, and I get a toolchain that does
not require cygwin1.dll (which causes many compatibility problems from
what I have heared). But it may not be able to support some stuff that
works under cygwin.
I saw projects that use msys but I haven't built anything useful with
the compiler. I just use the shell and diff when I need that.

Thanks

Michal


[1] http://www.mingw.org/...

Ara.T.Howard

10/30/2006 3:26:00 PM

0

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

10/30/2006 9:33:00 PM

0

ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>
>> I use msys [1] when I want something like unix environment on Windows.
>> To me it looks lighter than cygwin, and I get a toolchain that does
>> not require cygwin1.dll (which causes many compatibility problems from
>> what I have heared). But it may not be able to support some stuff that
>> works under cygwin.
>> I saw projects that use msys but I haven't built anything useful with
>> the compiler. I just use the shell and diff when I need that.
>
> i've compiled both the gnu scientific library, narray, and rbtree
> packages for
> use on a window box here at work using msys. all are immensely useful and
> easy to compile under msys. fyi.
>
> -a
Yeah, the R Windows folks use MSys and eschew CygWin. I should try
rebuilding Atlas under MSys. Now that I think of it, the Windows port of
LyX uses MSys too, so I probably have it already.