Mac, the most secure notebook on the market...

[skace]

Sourceninja isn't judging an open source project w/ 5 year old knowledge of it..... he's cemented in his bias and completely close minded to change. He doesn't want to hear what works, he wants to keep doing whatever it is he does and not be bothered. So the argument becomes moot. However he needs to remember that the original point was that "Windows can't do these things!" and the answer to that is, yes, they sure as shit can.

 

[sourceninja]

I never said windows can't do those things. I said it can't do those things out of the box. It requires setup, it's hackish, it's unsupported, and it's not the best way to do it.

If you need a *nix environment, the best way to get it is to use *nix. Plain and simple.

I want to hear what works, the suggestion of cygwin is not anything that works better then buying a unix computer right out of the gate. What I have works, works well, meets all my needs and was cheaper then my previous dell which didn't work out of the box and had hardware issues with wireless-N and linux.

There is a difference between doing something, and doing it well.

 

[Gothgar]

obligatory hate on apple post

obligatory hate on microsoft post

 

[sourceninja]

Further more, for me to comfortably use cygwin, I'm going to need to install a good chunk of gnome or kde (which is problematic) just to get a decent terminal. It's still not going to function 100% like a unix terminal because of the differences in filesystem.

With OSX/Linux I get a real terminal out of the box.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I never said windows can't do those things. I said it can't do those things out of the box. It requires setup, it's hackish, it's unsupported, and it's not the best way to do it.

If you need a *nix environment, the best way to get it is to use *nix. Plain and simple.

I want to hear what works, the suggestion of cygwin is not anything that works better then buying a unix computer right out of the gate. What I have works, works well, meets all my needs and was cheaper then my previous dell which didn't work out of the box and had hardware issues with wireless-N and linux.

There is a difference between doing something, and doing it well.

1. No, that is not what you said. What you said is "I don't want to learn another language" To which I pointed out that you can use cygwin and not have to us another language.

2. No arguments, for developing *nix software, it is best to have an *nix environment. However, if you don't have one available for whatever reason, cygwin is a good and reasonable alternative.

3. Your right, cygwin isn't better then a unix machine, That was never the arguement.

Originally posted by: sourceninja
Further more, for me to comfortably use cygwin, I'm going to need to install a good chunk of gnome or kde (which is problematic) just to get a decent terminal. It's still not going to function 100% like a unix terminal because of the differences in filesystem.

With OSX/Linux I get a real terminal out of the box.

WTF do you consider a "Real Terminal". One that has pretty pictures on it or that can become transparent? Seriously, cygwin uses bash, that is the core of any terminal. Beyond that, all you get it pretty graphical pictures. I've never seen some astounding beam of "OMG I MUST HAVE THIS" come from any terminal.

As for the filesystem bs. thats all it is, bs. I've never seen the filesystem play some significant role in software development. Unless you are actually working with the file system (and pretty close to nobody is) you aren't going to have any troubles with the filesystem.

Again, your major concern was that you didn't want to learn another language. My main argument is that with cygwin, you don't have to learn another language. End of story. Now that your initial concern is resolved, you seem to be floating to this ethereal plain of what a "Real Terminal" is.

 

[0roo0roo]

i can has bash?
so !%#@ what!! lol

 

[shortylickens]

Yup, this thread went in EXACTLTY the same direction as every other one we've ever had on Anandtech.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I never said windows can't do those things. I said it can't do those things out of the box. It requires setup, it's hackish, it's unsupported, and it's not the best way to do it

Linux is better than Windows because Windows is too... hackish? :boggle;

 

[Goosemaster]

OSXvsWindows threads

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Seems we have these threads every other week.

 

[jagec]

I just can't believe that they changed their units for disk space in their latest $30 patch. The STANDARD is the binary kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte etc, not the decimal. Sure, it's a misuse of the SI prefixes, but if I have a 10 GB file on my PC, and I send it to my colleague, there are all kinds of reasons why I don't want it to suddenly appear as a "bigger" file. And this is the FIRST version of their OS that correctly supports 64-bit and multiple cores? Seriously? How long have these things been around?

On the whole, Apple probably ships a superior OS, but that only makes the occasional glaring shortcomings and obvious money-grubbing all the more annoying.

 

[0roo0roo]

err... not sure what you are talking about. they supported multicore...64bit. its just doing it better... read up
http://arstechnica.com/apple/r...9/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars frankly its support of 64bit is better than ms's...

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: jagec
The STANDARD is the decimal kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte etc, not the binary..

Fixed that for you. The binary "kilobyte" is the kibibyte. Hard drive manufacturers don't sell drives based on gibibytes (and even Intel doesn't for SSDs!) so why should the OS measure it that way?

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I never said windows can't do those things. I said it can't do those things out of the box. It requires setup, it's hackish, it's unsupported, and it's not the best way to do it.

If you need a *nix environment, the best way to get it is to use *nix. Plain and simple.

I want to hear what works, the suggestion of cygwin is not anything that works better then buying a unix computer right out of the gate. What I have works, works well, meets all my needs and was cheaper then my previous dell which didn't work out of the box and had hardware issues with wireless-N and linux.

There is a difference between doing something, and doing it well.

1. No, that is not what you said. What you said is "I don't want to learn another language" To which I pointed out that you can use cygwin and not have to us another language.

2. No arguments, for developing *nix software, it is best to have an *nix environment. However, if you don't have one available for whatever reason, cygwin is a good and reasonable alternative.

3. Your right, cygwin isn't better then a unix machine, That was never the arguement.

Originally posted by: sourceninja
Further more, for me to comfortably use cygwin, I'm going to need to install a good chunk of gnome or kde (which is problematic) just to get a decent terminal. It's still not going to function 100% like a unix terminal because of the differences in filesystem.

With OSX/Linux I get a real terminal out of the box.

WTF do you consider a "Real Terminal". One that has pretty pictures on it or that can become transparent? Seriously, cygwin uses bash, that is the core of any terminal. Beyond that, all you get it pretty graphical pictures. I've never seen some astounding beam of "OMG I MUST HAVE THIS" come from any terminal.

As for the filesystem bs. thats all it is, bs. I've never seen the filesystem play some significant role in software development. Unless you are actually working with the file system (and pretty close to nobody is) you aren't going to have any troubles with the filesystem.

Again, your major concern was that you didn't want to learn another language. My main argument is that with cygwin, you don't have to learn another language. End of story. Now that your initial concern is resolved, you seem to be floating to this ethereal plain of what a "Real Terminal" is.

And of course your comment on cygwin has nothing to do with powershell, which was what I was suggested to use. Powershell would require me to learn another language. I don't nee cygwin to use python, perl, php, ruby, etc on windows. I don't see how cygwin comes into a conversation about switching to windows power shell?

What I fail to understand is why in a unix environment I should be using windows? Just because it's possible?

What should a real terminal have? Well, it should have bookmarks for opening a shell with different text and background colors based on the server name it is connected to. It should have anti-alised text, it should be as simple as drag and drop to resize, it simply must support tabs, it needs to let me control the emulation type, The top of the window needs to say ServerName: Last command, I need to be able to control the fonts, have a choice of audio or visual beeps, control the color set the terminal uses for text, change my text encoding, have windows groups to open up a bunch of default terminals at the same time and auto run their scripts to connect to the servers I need, and a few other things I'm probably forgetting I use.

I use a terminal all day long. I run dozens of solaris and linux servers (and a few mac servers). Putty and that crappy thing windows calls a command prompt are not terminal applications. They are junk compared to what is offered on linux and OSX.

I have a huge selection of scripts to automate my job. Many of them would require editing to run on windows/cygwin.

Cygwin is a good choice for people who have to use windows, and wish they were using unix. For those of us who can use unix, that is the better choice.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I never said windows can't do those things. I said it can't do those things out of the box. It requires setup, it's hackish, it's unsupported, and it's not the best way to do it

Linux is better than Windows because Windows is too... hackish? :boggle;

No the process of trying to turn windows into unix (cygwin) is hackish.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: jagec
I just can't believe that they changed their units for disk space in their latest $30 patch. The STANDARD is the binary kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte etc, not the decimal. Sure, it's a misuse of the SI prefixes, but if I have a 10 GB file on my PC, and I send it to my colleague, there are all kinds of reasons why I don't want it to suddenly appear as a "bigger" file. And this is the FIRST version of their OS that correctly supports 64-bit and multiple cores? Seriously? How long have these things been around?

On the whole, Apple probably ships a superior OS, but that only makes the occasional glaring shortcomings and obvious money-grubbing all the more annoying.

I agree that whole base-10 file size thing is stupid. If I used finder for file management I would probably be pissed. Luckily the rest of the system shows the file sizes correctly.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
And of course your comment on cygwin has nothing to do with powershell, which was what I was suggested to use. Powershell would require me to learn another language. I don't nee cygwin to use python, perl, php, ruby, etc on windows. I don't see how cygwin comes into a conversation about switching to windows power shell?

What I fail to understand is why in a unix environment I should be using windows? Just because it's possible?

What should a real terminal have? Well, it should have bookmarks for opening a shell with different text and background colors based on the server name it is connected to. It should have anti-alised text, it should be as simple as drag and drop to resize, it simply must support tabs, it needs to let me control the emulation type, The top of the window needs to say ServerName: Last command, I need to be able to control the fonts, have a choice of audio or visual beeps, control the color set the terminal uses for text, change my text encoding, have windows groups to open up a bunch of default terminals at the same time and auto run their scripts to connect to the servers I need, and a few other things I'm probably forgetting I use.

I use a terminal all day long. I run dozens of solaris and linux servers (and a few mac servers). Putty and that crappy thing windows calls a command prompt are not terminal applications. They are junk compared to what is offered on linux and OSX.

I have a huge selection of scripts to automate my job. Many of them would require editing to run on windows/cygwin.

Cygwin is a good choice for people who have to use windows, and wish they were using unix. For those of us who can use unix, that is the better choice.

So, A real terminal must be pretty in order to be functional? Most of those things you listed you can do with cygwin. Its just a matter of setting it up for it (Just like it is a matter of setting up some bash console to look the way you want it to). Tabbed windows, you can't do with it, that's true.

But why a console must have anti-aliased text and give you font control is beyond me. Its a console, you put commands into it and get actions out of it.

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Platypus
... The ability to have a native UNIX shell environment is essential for me. These things do not exist in Windows unfortunately.

Powershell... (I understand most won't have any experience what so ever with it for quite awhile now, but when they finally do they will see the light)

No thanks, I'm already fluent in bash, ksh, php, perl, python, ruby, C, C++, Obj-C, applescript, javascript, java, any probably a few I'm forgetting. I have no desire to learn any more languages, especially proprietary ones.

This is where the original argument started. You see that, He is saying that "A unix shell environment doesn't exist on windows." I say, yes, it does with cygwin. Is that clear enough for you? Thats what this whole thing is about.

I've already told you, that yes, when a native unix environment is available, it is the better choice for shell scripting. I never disputed that. What I'm disputing is the fact that someone said "You can't do it on windows." Which it looks like you finally agree that you can do it on window, and that it is a good alternative if unix isn't available.

So It looks like we in agreement and this argument is over. Hurray!

BTW, I am curious as to what you would have to change in your shell scripts to make them work for cygwin.