[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:28:31 +0200

> From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:03:50 +0900
> Cc: address@hidden
> "Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden> writes:
> > I doubt Cygwin can be "a fine solution" for anything, but that's just me.
> There seem to be a fair number of windows users who have some sort of
> gripe with cygwin, but I've never quite understood what it
> is...

The gripe is threefold:

  . You cannot install a single Cygwin package seamlessly, without
    pulling in a whole bunch of other packages (which could
    potentially conflict with whatever else you have on your
    machine -- a hassle, since Cygwin is subtly incompatible with
    non-Cygwin programs).

  . There can be only one Cygwin DLL on any given system.  This is a
    hassle: e.g., it practically requires that you always upgrade all
    your Cygwin packages whenever a new version is uploaded.

  . Compared to native ports, Cygwin is slow.

The first two problems mean in practice that Cygwin is a catholic
marriage, unless one has lots of time to tinker with their system.

There: now you've heard it.

> Yes, obviously in the long run, the msys git port will probably be
> preferable to the majority of developers.  What you say above seems to
> indicate it's further along than I realized.

MSYS is just a fork of Cygwin, and as such, shares most of its
problems mentioned above.  Its primary goal was to provide a _build_
environment for native MinGW ports, not a platform to produce ports
used outside of the build environment for their own good.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]