Slashdot Mirror

If I had DOS then I could have installed an old version of cygwin and then got my favourite GNU tools working! Jobs would have had a fit it I could have done that.

You beat me to it. Anyway, the links: http://cygwin.com/ http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=openssh

You beat me to it. Anyway, the links: http://cygwin.com/ http://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=openssh

I can't see my mother complaining that she can't open a bash shell for example.

Tell her to install Cygwin! http://cygwin.com/

I see Windows on almost all the computers I come across, it must be a GREAT product since everyone has it! ;)

It is. It even runs Linux!

Distributing several unmodified GPL binaries, so long as the source is also available, is perfectly acceptable as I understand it...

Also, if this is software that is not going outside your organization, then I don't think you have to worry about it at all...

Not to be picky, but from the Cygwin license (emphasis mine)

If you distribute the Cygwin DLL, either in its original form or in a form modified by you, you must adhere to the terms of the GPL, i.e. you must provide sources for the Cygwin DLL unless you have obtained a special Cygwin license to distribute the Cygwin DLL in only its binary form (see below).

But yes, if you don't distribute, no problem.

But the other thing I was trying to point out is if you supply a version of the Cygwin dll and the user has a different version already installed, you can run into problems.

You could even ship a copy of cygwin.dll and any binaries you need, like bash, netcat, or what have you. I prefer Unix apparently.

Be careful about that.

I use Cygwin myself, but copying the .dll for use with your app is fraught with peril.

I like Cygwin. It's not perfect, and I am not sure I'd call it production-grade, but I've never had problems with it for "toy" projects and general workstation-grade hacking around.

Are you Microsofties really so stupid and ignorant that you're not aware of the ports of GNU utilities to Windows or Cygwin or even your own company's Interix and Services for UNIX products?

No, but to explain this, I need to give you some background.

When I joined Microsoft, I hadn't used any version of Windows at all for any reason other than playing games. After joining Microsoft, I never used Windows at home for any purpose other than logging into the VPN to work from home... and since I did not even have an x86 machine, this required using Virtual PC on my Mac OSX box.

Now, I know of all of these tools, and I even could install GVim on the machine as well. However, I was working in a Build Group. This required me to occasionally log into 100 different machines at once in order to start the build process for WinXP/Server 2003. Most of these machines require no more input than logging in and starting up a single app... thus no reason to install special software on them.

Then, something would break, and I would have to read logs, and/or code on the actual box that had the exact problem. Spending an hour installing apps to do my job would be an unacceptable use of my time, and delay the build unnecessarily.

I learned to use the tools that were available with the environment that I was in. Thus, I did almost all of my programming at Microsoft in notepad.exe, and I'm not kidding you.

Were I in a different group? The results could have been different... but having 100 different machines, most of which I didn't have admin rights to, meant that even just installing Notepad++ or something like that would have been a waste of time.

Are you Microsofties really so stupid and ignorant that you're not aware of the ports of GNU utilities to Windows or Cygwin or even your own company's Interix and Services for UNIX products?

You mean Cygwin isn't enough?

Cygwin 1.7 does support case-sensitive filenames. See the User's Guide on how to enable it: http://www.cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-specialnames.html#pathnames-casesensitive It's also had various other improvements in terms of POSIX compatibility, for example, characters not allowed in Windows filenames can now be used in Cygwin. Another one is that mount points are now stored in /etc/fstab rather than the registry. See the What's New section for lots more improvements: http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ov-new1.7.html The Cygwin developers do have an official Linux compatibility goal, and fixes are going in all the time, but of course it's never going to be perfect, partly due to limitations of the underlying platform, and partly due to lack of (wo)manpower.

Cygwin 1.7 does support case-sensitive filenames. See the User's Guide on how to enable it: http://www.cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using-specialnames.html#pathnames-casesensitive It's also had various other improvements in terms of POSIX compatibility, for example, characters not allowed in Windows filenames can now be used in Cygwin. Another one is that mount points are now stored in /etc/fstab rather than the registry. See the What's New section for lots more improvements: http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ov-new1.7.html The Cygwin developers do have an official Linux compatibility goal, and fixes are going in all the time, but of course it's never going to be perfect, partly due to limitations of the underlying platform, and partly due to lack of (wo)manpower.

RTFA:

- Default character set is now UTF-8, but other character sets are
    supported via an improved internationalization support. See
    http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/setup-locale.html

From the 1.7 release announcement:

- Default character set is now UTF-8, but other character sets are supported via an improved internationalization support.

Full of what's new / changed.

From the 1.7 release announcement:

- Default character set is now UTF-8, but other character sets are supported via an improved internationalization support.

Full of what's new / changed.

Yes. From the announcement:

- Default character set is now UTF-8, but other character sets are
    supported via an improved internationalization support. See
    http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/setup-locale.html

Yes. From the announcement:

- Default character set is now UTF-8, but other character sets are
    supported via an improved internationalization support. See
    http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/setup-locale.html

http://www.cygwin.com/ ?

If you want "close to the metal" POSIX API compatibility then there's Cygwin which is easier to use IMO and more actively developed but doesn't support the *full* POSIX spec or there is UWIN which supports most of the POSIX spec.

Combine this with OpenGL, OpenAL, the SDL and Cygwin/X, QT, a Java layer using the SWT from Eclipse, *shudder* GLUT *shudder* ;) or IMNSHO preferably wxWindows/wxWidgets and you've got yourself a full cross-platform programming toolkit that can do just about anything.

jdb2

If you want "close to the metal" POSIX API compatibility then there's Cygwin which is easier to use IMO and more actively developed but doesn't support the *full* POSIX spec or there is UWIN which supports most of the POSIX spec.

Combine this with OpenGL, OpenAL, the SDL and Cygwin/X, QT, a Java layer using the SWT from Eclipse, *shudder* GLUT *shudder* ;) or IMNSHO preferably wxWindows/wxWidgets and you've got yourself a full cross-platform programming toolkit that can do just about anything.

jdb2

Yes but, does it run on Windows 7?

http://cygwin.com/

"The Cygwin DLL currently works with all recent, commercially released x86 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Windows, with the exception of Windows CE."

PS: Cygwin will save your sanity, so long as you can get through the clunky install.

Well, I use Cygwin...or more precisely CygwinX ...basically cygwin, with xwindows thrown in. I fire up cygwin. Start X from that...and open up a bunch of xterm windows. Works pretty well...

I find when I have to use those windows boxes on site, I often really, really miss having my unix tools (sed, awk, etc...) around.

1) Install Cygwin.
2) Add the Cygwin bin directory to your path.
3) Enjoy - The Command Prompt just got a helluva lot more useful.

Wasted 3 mod points that I'd contributed before posting, but felt the need to share the joy of Cygwin. Makes Windows damned near tolerable for people that have to have it.

Win32 is a subsystem on the same level as POSIX. The Windows Win32 subsystem does not support fork. The Windows POSIX subsystem does support fork, and always has.

And the Windows .NET framework 3.5 is based on the Win32 subsystem.

Cygwin needed to reimplement fork for two reasons:

1. It ran on Windows 95-Me. Those do not use the Windows NT kernel and never have, so they have no POSIX subsystem. They're apparently cutting support for this in the next version, but it's too late to just not re-implement fork.
2. Cygwin sits on the Win32 subsystem to simplify interoperability with Win32 applications. A lot of the point of cygwin would be lost if it built on the POSIX subsystem.

References:

[1] http://www.ee.adfa.edu.au/staff/hrp/webDesignHelp/cygwin-ug-net-nochunks.html

"...processes run under the standard Win32 subsystem..."

[2] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-01/msg00663.html

Reason #2 is that OS X is the only OS on which I can run Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and a Unix shell.

Photoshop, Dreamweaver and a Unix shell all seem available on Windows.

Just for you livewire98801

http://cygwin.com/

Well, basically, you just follow his instructions, but on Windows.

Install Cygwin for Windows versions of ssh and X.

cygwin
http://www.cygwin.com/

on the other hand the Mac allows you to use a nice Unix shell window and that makes everything all better

Ever hear of http://www.cygwin.com/ ? Windows + cygwin still == meh, but it's only just about as meh as OSX.

I swear by cygwin, which lets you use rsync plus hundreds of other POSIX/Linux applications. These are the real McCoy, not half-baked re-implementations.

A decent Perl distro for Windows is free.

vim works perfectly well under Windows.

If you can't find a replacement for the others, look at cygwin to run many more *nix programs and utilities... including a real shell ("cli").

You can work around many Windows shortcomings and end up with something that works for you.

I have been told "You don't exist, go away!". Perhaps that was no error message.

I know... Python and Ruby and Java are the hot languages, and you think Perl is going the way of COBOL. Well f*ck it - I like perl. And, there are some great reasons to use it:
1. I already know it. I learned it before Ruby was "cool".
2. It's already installed on every Linux and BSD machine. Yes, that means I can run my script on your brand new Ubuntu desktop, or your 1998 BSD server. And it'll work.
3. Great Regex support (am not saying your language de-jour doesn't, just that perl does)
4. CPAN is one of the most extensive software libraries known to mankind.
5. It really doesn't matter if you use it or not - perl is here for the long haul. Too many linux utilities depend on it. My linux box doesn't have ruby or python installed, and I haven't had any problems. Try deleting perl from yours!

So, if you are like me, you already know Perl. Maybe you don't use windows at home, but you have to use it at work. I suggest you download Strawberry Perl (or go all-out with cygwin).
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be great support for perl with .NET. So, I guess we have to stick with the Win32 CPAN modules you already know about.
But maybe, just maybe, someone will come along one day... and viola! Perl.NET!

Until that day comes, I will continue to use perl anyway, and all of you Haters out there can go $@_{s/;//g}!

muhttpd uses fork, yet it works on Windows, thanks to the excellent work of the Cygwin project (at least earlier versions of muhttpd worked under Cygwin; I haven't tested recently).

Enterprise-level versions of Windows are fairly posix-compliant.

For all the others there's various libraries and environments like cygwin that support various degrees of Posix for Windows. It is easy to find a fork() for windows, or indeed posix threads, etc.

I used CygWin {...} You get used to having BASH on windows pretty quickly.

Cygwin (and also MinGW MSYS - not a full blown POSIX layer as Cygwin, but just the bare minimum necessary to run automake and friends)
both provide an application called RXVT which provide a nice terminal window in which to run your favorite BASH, instead of Windows' default terminal window.

Unlike the Microsoft's joke, RXVT provide a fully functional terminal, with decent support of scroll back buffer, and fast on-mouse-button copy and paste which supports multi line selection.

RXVT's the ideal complement to BASH for all use command-line freaks.

I used CygWin for a couple of weeks before my department was closed and i was downsized*. You get used to having BASH on windows pretty quickly.

*Once again, the WAR PARTY has centrally managed us into another depression.

Why not just run "xdm" or other XDMCP compatible display manager on the box? Then you can log in remotely via Exceed , Cygwin/X (on Windows) or similar tools with built-in XDMCP browser. (See also: Linux XDMCP How-To) -- With XDMCP, you can have full access to a Linux (or other Unix) desktop.

I hadn't seen this one before (and no, I am *not* new here), so for the fellow uninitiated, LART == Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool.

One would need a full scripting language, like bash, to do such.

1. Cygwin, which includes bash and it won't cost you a single pennny.
2. Python, which can do almost anything you can imagine. It also runs on Windows and will cost you $0.

Yes. ...
Here is the list of free software regarding databases: http://directory.fsf.org/category/db/, but...
A flat file in a unix file system is already a "Database", as long as you have a text editor, (an emacs exists for w32 @ http://www.cygwin.com./ if a file contains data, it is a database. the only thing particular to more official databases is that these files are always interpreted using the same structure of rows and columns, and indexes are created and maintained, and more complicated bells and whistles added, but
-This can be completely done with shell scripts(bash is also available for winbloze fm w/in cygwin).
-Or, emacs has a planner.el program that keeps and organizes flat files of data in ways that would satisfy your needs.
-There is an emacs wiki system that can be very easily bent to your needs, and is used in planner.el, and
-There is a product called remember.el that will keep track of anything you want, and allows easy reviewing of when and where and what you wanted to note down about your information.
-There is a database system built with emacs lisp called EDB available here: http://people.csail.mit.edu/mernst/software/edb/ and it is excellent. It is extensively and clearly documented, and is very easy to use.
There are many interfaces to existing database languages using emacs front ends, and there are many more available in common lisp, which u can use in emacs. The cygwin link gets you the most unixlike environment available for win-vistasux-doze to run your emacs in and is very easy to install and maintain, but there is another emacs for win32 built in the-land-of-the-lost(windows) without cygwin, here: http://www.neuralwiki.org/index.php?title=Installing_EMACS

Given the average /. reader, I beg to differ on that point.

If you're referring to the average user, then perhaps it would be a valid point that MS was out to screw you for the availability of that one feature (pun intended).

However, if you're even remotely adept at dealing with network apps, then you would be actually screwing yourself by forking over "$200+" for a feature you could actually install for free by using OpenVPN or OpenSSH running on Cygwin.

Just my 2 cents...

> So just how DO you get a bash prompt to appear on a Windows box?

Cygwin, obviously.

Easy. Install Cygwin and click on the little icon.

So just how DO you get a bash prompt to appear on a Windows box?

Cygwin?

But I do agree with the rest of your comment.

Microsoft did try this before when they first brought out Windows NT. They provided a very minimal shell environment along with some unix emulation commands (make, ls, df, du, vi) as well as being able to get OpenGL drivers ported over. The idea was to provide these commands to get the applications ported over, and then to silently withdraw the suppport once the applications were ported.

There are still emulation libraries by Cygwin and MKS

Shell scripts are Microsofts weakness. Microsoft held off from including Monad into Vista for security fears. This was in a previous Slashdot discussion

After I had a couple of old Win95-era games that refused to install on my brother's Win2k system (I haven't had Windows for nearly a decade, so I was thinking of giving them to him), I've been wondering if it might not be possible to get Wine to run on Windows. Sounds like this might be an idea that will only become more and more reasonable as time goes on. So...how about it, Wine team? Can we possibly get Wine for Windows? It could run on top of Cygwin/X. :)