Cygwin
-
Brisingr Aerowing wrote:
How many have no clue what I am talking about?
Cygwin? Maybe I'm getting too old now but I never heard of it until I saw you write about it. :(
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
Unless you have a use for it you probably wouldn't hear about it - I used it a few years ago to enable SSH on my Win box - works very well and reasonably light on resources.
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
Question to ask myself later: what is SSH?
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
Question to ask myself later: what is SSH?
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
I am currently re-installing Cygwin x64 as a recent crash made it go FUBAR (the crash was caused by VirtualBox. No real surprise there, eh?) I also will be updating a number of packages, such as Git (1.7.9 -> 1.8.4.1), Bash (4.1.something -> 4.2), and so on. How many people here use Cygwin? How many knew there is now a x64 version? How many have no clue what I am talking about? How many don't care?
Keep Clam And Proofread -- √(-1) 23 ∑ π... And it was delicious.
-
Question to ask myself later: what is SSH?
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
I am currently re-installing Cygwin x64 as a recent crash made it go FUBAR (the crash was caused by VirtualBox. No real surprise there, eh?) I also will be updating a number of packages, such as Git (1.7.9 -> 1.8.4.1), Bash (4.1.something -> 4.2), and so on. How many people here use Cygwin? How many knew there is now a x64 version? How many have no clue what I am talking about? How many don't care?
Keep Clam And Proofread -- √(-1) 23 ∑ π... And it was delicious.
-
Still fails. I have no clue what is going on, and I will try redownloading the installer tomorrow. My internet connection is kinda flaky at night.
Keep Clam And Proofread -- √(-1) 23 ∑ π... And it was delicious.
-
Last time I had a look at it, the 32bit version was pretty broken but at least semi-usable. The 64bit version was completely borken, seemingly beyond repair, but I guess it's been fixed now..
-
What are you all talking about? Cygwin is rock-stable. Any time it goes wrong, a simple rebase fixes everything (and it's not Cygwin's fault, it's a shitty windows DLL model).
vl2 wrote:
a simple rebase fixes everything
If something requires fixing, that means it's broken. It's also entirely its own fault - plenty of software works just fine on Windows without periodically using the excuse "yes but DLL model".
vl2 wrote:
Cygwin is rock-stable.
Ok. Like I said, I haven't used it in a while. Maybe it got better.
-
vl2 wrote:
a simple rebase fixes everything
If something requires fixing, that means it's broken. It's also entirely its own fault - plenty of software works just fine on Windows without periodically using the excuse "yes but DLL model".
vl2 wrote:
Cygwin is rock-stable.
Ok. Like I said, I haven't used it in a while. Maybe it got better.
DLL offsets are broken by Windows and the other windows software. And windows does not support position-independent DLLs (in 21st century! omg!), so the usual Unix model does not map well onto windows practice. I've been using cygwin since around 1999, and it was pretty solid back then. The only real problem with cygwin (back then, and still affecting) is load times for heavy C++ applications, due to a lack of lazy static initialisation (again, thanks to an outdated and crappy COFF model).
-
DLL offsets are broken by Windows and the other windows software. And windows does not support position-independent DLLs (in 21st century! omg!), so the usual Unix model does not map well onto windows practice. I've been using cygwin since around 1999, and it was pretty solid back then. The only real problem with cygwin (back then, and still affecting) is load times for heavy C++ applications, due to a lack of lazy static initialisation (again, thanks to an outdated and crappy COFF model).
vl2 wrote:
I've been using cygwin since around 1999, and it was pretty solid back then.
Really? Never even a "nope, there's a space in that path so I'm just going to completely freak out"? The first (and only) time I tried the 64bit version, it just completely refused to work at all. Some arcane error when trying to start that shell thing.
-
vl2 wrote:
I've been using cygwin since around 1999, and it was pretty solid back then.
Really? Never even a "nope, there's a space in that path so I'm just going to completely freak out"? The first (and only) time I tried the 64bit version, it just completely refused to work at all. Some arcane error when trying to start that shell thing.
-
Unix tools will freak out on spaces in paths anyway, no matter what your underlying platform is. It's not a bug, it's a feature. But I admit I never tried cygwin on Windows8, and I'm not going to leave 7 any time soon.
-
Most paths on Windows have spaces. Refusing to deal with that reality is absolutely not a feature.
-
Cygwin feature is to be POSIX-compatible. Introducing incompatibilities for a sake of some stupid spaces is not an option.
-
Ok, try to install it in a directory with a space somewhere in it then. Like "Program Files". That's supposed to work, right? Well it didn't. That it doesn't like paths with spaces in it internally in its own little world is fine. That's not what I'm talking about.
-
vl2 wrote:
Just not the way windows-minded folk expects it to.
That is similar to claiming that OSX works on Macs but because it doesn't work on a windows machine that the windows machine is broken. And presumably you would also claim that Linux is broken since it provides methods that allow spaces in paths as well.
-
Ok, try to install it in a directory with a space somewhere in it then. Like "Program Files". That's supposed to work, right? Well it didn't. That it doesn't like paths with spaces in it internally in its own little world is fine. That's not what I'm talking about.
-
vl2 wrote:
Just not the way windows-minded folk expects it to.
That is similar to claiming that OSX works on Macs but because it doesn't work on a windows machine that the windows machine is broken. And presumably you would also claim that Linux is broken since it provides methods that allow spaces in paths as well.
You're free to use spaces in paths, of course. Just never expect any scripts with string escaping work with them. No matter what your OS is. Something is terribly broken in the heads of those who allows spaces in the paths - they're making it nearly impossible to deal with their infrastructure with any scripting environment. COMMAND.COM chokes on spaces too, by the way.
