On 10/27/06, jameshcunningham / gmail.com <jameshcunningham / gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 6:44 pm, "Austin Ziegler" <halosta... / gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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).
> Would you like a candy? A pat on the back? A "who cares - just because
> you want to increase the amount of work you have to do by making your
> platforms completely disparate, doesn't mean I have to?"

I'm just baffled that people are so opposed to Windows conventions that
they must install a poorly-matched emulation layer to make it feel
usable.

This isn't about "my company mandates two different incompatible things:
that I run this Unix program that won't yet compile on Windows and that
I run Windows." This is about "I'm going to install this because it's
the way I want to work, and the company won't let me run Linux."

This is very *much* about choosing to work in a way that's different
than how the underlying platform works. What would Linux users do if
they heard someone was using a DOS compatibility layer to do all their
work, including a COMMAND.COM replacement. They'd mock them mercilessly.

WINE is given a bit more a free pass, but I think it's no different: you
use it if you *have* to, not because you *want* to. The Linux user's
goal isn't to run Windows programs on Linux; it's to run Linux programs
on Linux. It's just that some of the useful programs aren't native to
Linux, and therefore they must have WINE. I don't know a single Linux
user who would *choose* to use Windows Explorer on WINE as opposed to
Konqueror or Nautilus.

So what gives folks who want to use Cygwin a free pass?

The *reality*, Mr Cunningham, is that your platforms *are* completely
disparate. Using Cygwin to pretend that they aren't is lazy.

My statements, by the way, weren't looking for pats on the back from
asinine twits; they were merely statements that it is not only possible
but *easy* to switch between various platforms without having to rely on
crutches like Cygwin. This is why I simply cannot understand the
laziness involved.

>>> 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.
> Yeah, because coLinux is a great, flawless alternative. Seriously:
> what would someone gain by installing coLinux over Cygwin, if that
> person wishes to develop for Windows? You get some speed, but Cygwin's
> speed is more than sufficient for many tasks.

If a person wants to develop for Windows, they should *never* use Cygwin
to do that. It's that simple. Cygwin is not a viable alternative for
software development on Windows. It never has been. It's a way to get
Unix programs to run on Windows through a compatibility layer. Licensing
issues with Cygwin make it a non-starter for pretty much anything else.
And, honestly, it's not necessary. At work, I have a *lot* of Unix-style
command-line tools installed through the GNUWin32 project, and I have
mktex, too.

It's a userland thing which is mostly nonsensical to run, and it's
usually run by people who are too lazy to learn to do things in the
native platform.

> [snip]
>> 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).
> I have yet to meet the graphical file manager that allows me to work
> anywhere near as quickly and efficiently as I do in bash with Unix
> utilities. What would I gain by shelling out cash for a program which
> slows me down, other than some warm and happy feeling about using
> completely native solutions?

Obviously, you've never looked at the tools that I've mentioned. You
wouldn't call them "graphical file managers" if you had. (Hint: they're
rendered by the GUI, but then again, so is a modern console. Graphical
file managers are very different than these two programs; graphical file
managers tend to be mouse driven. Both DOpus and TC work with the mouse,
but are *keyboard* driven.)

>> Better to deal with things as they are if you must deal with an
>> operating system you do not prefer.
> Why? What exactly do you gain?

The lack of an impedance mismatch. So what do you do when you go to a
colleague's computer that doesn't have Cygwin installed? Do you force
them to install it before you will even help them?

I didn't think so.

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