Survey: Why do you use cygwin?

Alias on 2006-04-12T06:07:34

With your help, I'd like to try a thought experiment.

Lets imagine for a moment that the native Win32 compatibility was perfect. All the modules, all the functionality, they all Just Work.

Would you still want to use cygwin? It cygwin "just" a crutch to get around things that doesn't work natively? Or do you (personally) really need it for something else? Or do you just really like using it? Is it a fix for your Unix withdrawal syndrome?

Or would you be happy to see it gone if it wasn't needed to make certain modules work more easily?

---

There's more than just Perl in Cygwin

speters on 2006-04-12T11:43:26

There are several applications I use in Cygwin besides Perl. X Windows is the most important for work. ssh would be the next important. Having a command line shell to develop with is another. With older versions of Windows, grep was also an important addition. Finally, having a working free C compiler that's a relatively small download is a nice bonus.

Re:There's more than just Perl in Cygwin

Dom2 on 2006-04-12T11:57:16

  <aol>Me Too!</aol>

Cygwin's X server is enourmously useful. I actually use the rest of it relatively little. But it is occasionally useful to have zsh, ssh and rsync there when you need them.

-Dom

"Perfect" is dynamic, not static

jdavidb on 2006-04-12T13:15:39

From the original post, I did not even understand that Perl was at issue. I do use Cygwin for Perl, but primarily I use Cygwin for UNIX. And I'd say even more than that I use Cygwin for continuous improvement: even if Microsoft magically today made some kind of perfect UNIX compatibility (including perfect Perl and perfect X), I would continue to use Cygwin, because "perfect" is a moving target, and while the Cygwin and open source people understand that, Microsoft does not, and likely never will. I use Cygwin instead of several company standards, including Exceed and PuTTY, because it is under such constant quality development. I use it because I'm forced to work within an operating system that is not under that kind of constant improvement.

If Microsoft open sourced their operating system tomorrow and a community grew up around it that does what the Cygwin team does, or does what the Debian team does, my need for Cygwin might finally start to go away (assuming we get some good UNIX compatibility in there). It's not zealotry for Free Software, or even zealotry for UNIX ... it's zealotry for quality.

Re:"Perfect" is dynamic, not static

Alias on 2006-04-12T13:38:21

One of the long term trends I see with portability is that cywgin seems to be generating a disproportionate number of bugs for it's userbase.

So my side of the thought experiment is:

"If Perl worked perfectly on native Win32, could we (if we chose) abandon cygwin Perl"

And so far, the answer appears to be "maybe".

Not that it will actually happen, I'm just trying to understand cygwin's userbase a bit more.

Re:"Perfect" is dynamic, not static

jdavidb on 2006-04-12T14:34:08

I need Perl in Cygwin. It's not that I use Cygwin because I need Perl; it's that I need Cygwin, and since I am there I of course need Perl. To me Cygwin is a platform, and it is my platform of choice (although I'd rather choose a completely open source OS).

But it should only be maintained by somebody who is really enthusiastic about it.

For the record, I compile my own Perl everywhere I go, including Cygwin. The days before Perl would compile cleanly on Cygwin out of the box were misery for me. I am eternally grateful to whoever fixed that.

Not just Perl

jordan on 2006-04-12T11:44:48

I prefer bash to cmd.exe.

I like using the same editors on my Windows machines that I use on *nix. Generally, I like working the same way under Windows that I do on *nix machines.

I like grabbing a .tar.gz file off the net, ./configure and make it and it just works. That happens more often than you might think with cygwin.

That being said, I do experience a lot of cygwin fatigue. They've made some questionable decisions down through the years and refuse to revisit or discuss them.

I would still use Cygwin

Limbic Region on 2006-04-12T12:35:53

Having a single Perl installation where all modules worked would be great. Windows is not as bad as the haters make it out to be.

I still wouldn't sacrifice the power of the *nix command line.

I feel that the Windows marketers decided a long time ago to target people that were not interested in how things worked. The number of "us" is far smaller than the number of business people out there that want to point and click. As a result, they invest much more in developing applications that can be controlled through a GUI interface then in giving complete power at the command line.

The *nix group realized there was a great deal of benefit to offering the "I don't want to have to think about this" approach and started offering GUI front ends while retaining the command line. I think this is the right approach. Eventually it will catch on.

Till then, I have Cygwin to bring that approach to my Windows. So why use Windows at all? Well, every person's reasons for using or not using a particular OS are there own.

Cheers,
Limbic~Region

To answer explicitly

jdavidb on 2006-04-12T14:40:09

Lets imagine for a moment that the native Win32 compatibility was perfect. All the modules, all the functionality, they all Just Work.

I don't use native Win32 compatibility, and likely never will except in unusual situations. I don't want to be on Windows if I can help it. I don't use anything Windows offers if I can help it. I can't function without making it look like UNIX.

Would you still want to use cygwin?

Yes.

It cygwin "just" a crutch to get around things that doesn't work natively?

No.

Or do you (personally) really need it for something else?

Something besides Perl programming? YES. Everything, in fact. The only other apps I use are Firefox and Outlook (because I have to), and the Office apps (because I have to). I do everything that possibly can be done in Cygwin, including things that people more knowledgeable about Windows could probably do much more easily.

Or do you just really like using it?

YES.

Is it a fix for your Unix withdrawal syndrome?

Yes, and more than that.

Or would you be happy to see it gone if it wasn't needed to make certain modules work more easily?

I would grieve to see it gone. I don't use it to make certain modules work more easily. In fact, I regularly do without a tiny handful of modules that just don't work (yet). I have to offload that work to a UNIX machine.

I don't use Cygwin

bart on 2006-04-12T15:22:39

I currently use MSYS, of the MinGW stable, for my Unix compatible tools, but if it wasn't for that, I'd be using Unxutils instead.

I've used Cygwin for a while, but there's too much voodoo for my taste. I don't know exactly what it needs to make it work. And sometimes, if it works, it still does the wrong thing, especially for line endings.

So I'm glad for the alternatives.

recently not using cygwin at all

mr_bean on 2006-04-14T14:52:29

I used not to have my own computer, so cygwin
allowed me to push Windows back. Now with
computers sitting around at school unused, I
installed linux on them.

I still ssh in from a Windows machine, but
whereas in the past I was doing that from a
cygwin bash shell, I recently started using
PuTTY, and so I'm now not using cygwin at all.

If I were forced back off these other computers,
I would start using it again, however.