Hi,
In message “Re: [OT] Re: How do I tell when I’m on Cygwin?”
on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:31:58 +0900, Joel VanderWerf
[email protected] writes:
|(But doesn’t the FXRuby loading problem caused by ruby 1.8.5 qualify as
|serious? That’s what’s keeping me from upgrading from 1.8.4…)
I’m afraid that I don’t recognize that problem. Can you help me to
identify the problem?
matz.
Joel VanderWerf wrote:
I’m afraid that I don’t recognize that problem. Can you help me to
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/220744
So maybe it’s ok… does anyone have long-term experience with 1.8.5
and fox16? Is it stable?
I just managed to hack FXRuby for fox-1.6 into life on Sunday at
RubyConf on my Linux box. So I’d say that’s not “long-term” or “stable”
just yet. I haven’t actually attempted to use FXRuby other than as a
dependency in FreeRide, though.
I saw those messages when I fired up FreeRide in my One-click Windows
Ruby as well. They’re scary and annoying as hell, but FreeRide does come
up. Wherever they’re coming from, they should get fixed, but somehow it
doesn’t strike me as a problem with 1.8.5 – more likely coming from
whatever is calling Fox.
Ruby/Tk is looking better every day … 
Yukihiro M. wrote:
Hi,
In message “Re: [OT] Re: How do I tell when I’m on Cygwin?”
on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:31:58 +0900, Joel VanderWerf [email protected] writes:|(But doesn’t the FXRuby loading problem caused by ruby 1.8.5 qualify as
|serious? That’s what’s keeping me from upgrading from 1.8.4…)I’m afraid that I don’t recognize that problem. Can you help me to
identify the problem?
Ruby 1.8.5 loads the fox16.so twice, causing a large number of “already
initialized constant” messages.
One report:
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/219241
That post links to the FXRuby bug report:
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=5633&group_id=300&atid=1223
I reported it about a year ago for the 1.9 snapshot:
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/117682
But at least one report (from Curt H.) says that the problem doesn’t
seem to affect anything important:
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/220744
So maybe it’s ok… does anyone have long-term experience with 1.8.5
and fox16? Is it stable?
Joel VanderWerf wrote:
Ruby 1.8.5 loads the fox16.so twice, causing a large number of “already
initialized constant” messages.
Apparently it has been fixed in cvs:
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/8823
Austin Z. wrote:
(I don’t know; I stopped using Cygwin as soon as I
found more useful tools that didn’t require the whole bloody
framework).
Slightly off-topic, but I’d be really interested to hear of your
alternatives to Cygwin. Having to install the whole cygwin framework is
a pain, but I do like having ruby, irb, openssh, latex, and all the
usual GNU tools available through a bash shell on Windows.
Do you have this kind of setup ? How do you achieve it ? With MS
Services for UNIX ?
Chris
Chris L. wrote:
Do you have this kind of setup ? How do you achieve it ? With MS
Services for UNIX ?Chris
Well, you don’t “have to install the whole cygwin framework” to get
“ruby, irb, openssh, latex …”. I actually went through a mini-install
the other day. First you do the “default”, then install “ruby” and
“openssh”. I’m not sure about latex; I installed LyX and TeXmacs, which
bring the whole TeX toolchain in as a dependency.
The “GNU tools”, like the compilers, can be found in the “Development”
section. I gave up hunt and peck and just pulled in all of
“Development”.
I am, however, a big CygWin fan. It makes working on a Windows machine
tolerable for me. I’ve been a UNIX hacker since 1985, though, so there’s
a tad over two decades of muscle memory involved in my choice. So I just
install the whole thing anyway at work. 
On 10/26/06, Chris L. [email protected] wrote:
Austin Z. wrote:
(I don’t know; I stopped using Cygwin as soon as I
found more useful tools that didn’t require the whole bloody
framework).
Slightly off-topic, but I’d be really interested to hear of your
alternatives to Cygwin. Having to install the whole cygwin framework is
a pain, but I do like having ruby, irb, openssh, latex, and all the
usual GNU tools available through a bash shell on Windows.
The bash shell isn’t necessary on Windows (not if you know how to use
the existing command shell well enough or you use something like Total
Commander, like I do). I don’t use openssh on Windows, I use PuTTY. I
have most of the GNU tools that I need through GnuWin32. I use a
native TeX build.
Why do you think you need bash on Windows? IME, you only need it if
you’re having to run Unix-style shell scripts.
-austin
On 10/26/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:
I am, however, a big CygWin fan. It makes working on a Windows machine
tolerable for me. I’ve been a UNIX hacker since 1985, though, so there’s
a tad over two decades of muscle memory involved in my choice. So I just
install the whole thing anyway at work.
I agree. I don’t see what the big thing is against Cygwin. I did try
out
Xming though, and I prefer it over Cygwin for communicating with a
remote
Linux machine. However, Cygwin still fills that need of needing UNIX
tools
on Windows, and I can’t think of any other solution that works better.
–
Robert W. Oliver II
President, OCS Solutions, Inc. - Web Hosting and Development
Toll-Free Phone - 1-800-672-8415
OCS Ruby Forums - http://www.rubyforums.com/
My Blog - http://www.rwoliver.com/
On 10/26/06, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:
The bash shell isn’t necessary on Windows (not if you know how to use
the existing command shell well enough or you use something like Total
Commander, like I do). I don’t use openssh on Windows, I use PuTTY. I
have most of the GNU tools that I need through GnuWin32. I use a
native TeX build.Why do you think you need bash on Windows? IME, you only need it if
you’re having to run Unix-style shell scripts.
I know how to use the Windows shell very well, but it kinda sucks
Bash
is way better than CMD.EXE.
Cygwin provides a nice way to use many UNIX tools in Windows. It’s a
nice
comprehensive collection and you can even use it to build most UNIX
software
without a whole lot of trouble.
What can be so bad about it?
–
Robert W. Oliver II
President, OCS Solutions, Inc. - Web Hosting and Development
Toll-Free Phone - 1-800-672-8415
OCS Ruby Forums - http://www.rubyforums.com/
My Blog - http://www.rwoliver.com/
On 10/26/06, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:
The bash shell isn’t necessary on Windows (not if you know how to use
the existing command shell well enough or you use something like Total
Commander, like I do). I don’t use openssh on Windows, I use PuTTY. I
have most of the GNU tools that I need through GnuWin32. I use a
native TeX build.
These are all very nice and honerable tools but I go with the folks who,
like me, feel that is too much pain to learn too many tools, I love
bash, I
need to learn zsh for professional reasons, and I have sooo many other
interesting stuff I cannot even read about.
I guess Cygwin is better than you present it, especially if you can go
for a
slim install. Now when it comes to X, I completely agree with your POV.
But maybe the real discussion is about Windows, I use Cygwin to
forget
that Window even exists it is a therapy for me.
Why do you think you need bash on Windows? IME, you only need it if
you’re having to run Unix-style shell scripts.
-austin
Austin Z. * [email protected] * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* [email protected] * You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue
* [email protected]
Cheers
Robert
–
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.
On 10/26/06, Robert O. [email protected] wrote:
is way better than CMD.EXE.
I don’t agree. When I have to remember how to get to a different
drive (because Windows, unlike Unix, has separate roots), then there’s
a significant impedance mismatch. When bash is, IME, 3x slower than
cmd.exe, there’s a significant impedance mismatch.
I use bash whenever I’m on a Unix. I’m quite proficient in it (I just
spent most of the last six weeks of my time working on ksh and bash
scripts that we use at work). It doesn’t work so well on Windows
because it wasn’t made for Windows.
Cygwin provides a nice way to use many UNIX tools in Windows. It’s a nice
comprehensive collection and you can even use it to build most UNIX software
without a whole lot of trouble.
Yes, you can. Why do you want to?
What can be so bad about it?
Impedance mismatch. Major impedance mismatch. Cygwin is not a
solution. It’s a surrender. It’s saying “I’m not interested in
actually getting things to work on this platform the way they should.”
PostgresQL didn’t start having measurable impact on Windows database
choice until it had a native Windows release.
I use grep all the time on Windows. There are things about the Windows
command line that annoy me. There are things about the Unix command
line that annoy me. It annoys me much more to have to deal with an
impedance mismatch: if I have to use a drive letter on WINE on Unix or
if I have to remember where my Windows drives are mounted in Cygwin.
There are times when Cygwin is the right choice. It is the absolute
wrong choice for anyone who needs to do software development related
to Windows.
-austin
On 10/26/06, Robert O. [email protected] wrote:
I agree. I don’t see what the big thing is against Cygwin. I did try out
Xming though, and I prefer it over Cygwin for communicating with a remote
Linux machine. However, Cygwin still fills that need of needing UNIX tools
on Windows, and I can’t think of any other solution that works better.
As long as you don’t insist on bash or something that tries to map a
Unix filesystem over the Windows filesystem model, the GnuWin32 tools
work better.
When on Windows, use Windows mental models. When on OS X, use OS X
mental models (which is not just Unix, of course).
-austin
On 10/26/06, Robert D. [email protected] wrote:
The bash shell isn’t necessary on Windows (not if you know how to use
the existing command shell well enough or you use something like Total
Commander, like I do). I don’t use openssh on Windows, I use PuTTY. I
have most of the GNU tools that I need through GnuWin32. I use a
native TeX build.
These are all very nice and honerable tools but I go with the folks who,
like me, feel that is too much pain to learn too many tools, I love bash, I
need to learn zsh for professional reasons, and I have sooo many other
interesting stuff I cannot even read about.
I simply do not understand that. I cannot understand that. It
essentially boils down to “I don’t want to know anything about this
platform that I must use.” 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). When I had to use VMS, I made sure that I
understood it (even though I thought its command-line shell was
crap). The only time I do something different is when I install bash
on the four Unix-style platforms for which I develop if they don’t
already have it. Why? Because I wrote my build drivers using bash
conventions. It’d be no different than if I’d written the build
drivers with Ruby (then I wouldn’t care what shell people used).
I guess Cygwin is better than you present it, especially if you can go for a
slim install. Now when it comes to X, I completely agree with your POV.
It’s not better, even with a slim install. (Although, the 1Gb my
Cygwin directory used to take up was nice to get back when I finally
got rid of it.) Cygwin is supposed to be a narrow solution, e.g., I
have to use Windows but I also must use this Unix software that has
not yet been ported to Windows (or cannot be ported to Windows or
won’t be ported to Windows because the developers are asinine platform
bigots).
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. Otherwise, install Linux or
FreeBSD or something else on your machine and stop pretending you’re
using Unix.
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).
Your quote (“The reasonable man adapts himself…”) is somewhat apt.
However, you’re not going to change Windows by being unreasonable on
Windows (e.g., expecting Unix behaviour to mesh well); others won’t
change Linux by being unreasonable on Linux (e.g., running WINE).
Better to deal with things as they are if you must deal with an
operating system you do not prefer.
-austin
On 10/26/06, Robert O. [email protected] wrote:
If Cygwin does what I need it to do, then its the right choice for me. I
think it helps a lot of people too.I don’t do any Windows development, and if I did have to, I wouldn’t use
Cygwin for that.
Then why do you use Windows at all? Obviously, it’s a machine that
you’ve made the choice to run Windows on and it’s one that you control
(because you’ve got Cygwin on there).
I’m really honestly truly not understanding why you’re not just giving
Windows the heave-ho and settling with an inferior replica on Windows.
-austin
On 10/26/06, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:
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. Otherwise, install Linux or
FreeBSD or something else on your machine and stop pretending you’re
using Unix.
A lot of times installing coLinux or Linux, freeBSD, etc., aren’t
options.
There’s nothing wrong with using Cygwin. It’s a perfectly suitable
solution
for someone wanting UNIX tools on Windows. If it’s not for you, I
understand that, but its OK if people use it without being yelled at.
–
Robert W. Oliver II
President, OCS Solutions, Inc. - Web Hosting and Development
Toll-Free Phone - 1-800-672-8415
OCS Ruby Forums - http://www.rubyforums.com/
My Blog - http://www.rwoliver.com/
On 10/26/06, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:
Then why do you use Windows at all? Obviously, it’s a machine that
you’ve made the choice to run Windows on and it’s one that you control
(because you’ve got Cygwin on there).
We still live in a Windows world. I use Linux heavily as well, but I
have
machines that run Windows. On them, I like to install Cygwin.
I’m really honestly truly not understanding why you’re not just giving
Windows the heave-ho and settling with an inferior replica on Windows.
We can debate all day about Cygwin is inferiority or not, but it is what
it
is, and if its the right tool for the job for me then it makes sense
that I
use it.
–
Robert W. Oliver II
President, OCS Solutions, Inc. - Web Hosting and Development
Toll-Free Phone - 1-800-672-8415
OCS Ruby Forums - http://www.rubyforums.com/
My Blog - http://www.rwoliver.com/
Robert O. wrote:
I’m really honestly truly not understanding why you’re not just giving
Windows the heave-ho and settling with an inferior replica on Windows.
We can debate all day about Cygwin is inferiority or not, but it is what it
is, and if its the right tool for the job for me then it makes sense that I
use it.
Well … since I’m the one who started this …
Last night, I think I put to rest the claim that the one-click Ruby
is slower than the CygWin Ruby. At least on my matrix benchmark, it’s a
dead heat – they’re the same speed for all practical purposes.
I agree with Austin … there’s no excuse for using CygWin as a
Windows development tool set. And I fully expect his efforts to get a
native Microsoft tool set capable of doing everything Ruby needs to bear
fruit.
I run CygWin on my Windows machines out of laziness, and because the
Windows command line tools weren’t always as good as they are now. If
something can be done with native Windows tools, I generally do it
that way.
A full CygWin install, including X, has a lot of good stuff in it.
Both LyX and TeXmacs are there now, the Singular math package, should
you care about such exotic stuff, apache, PostgreSQL, etc. The CygWin
community is a vigorous one, and one I think is worthy of support.
CygWin has a lot less overhead than VMware.
Sometimes I need to use an open-source package that hasn’t attracted
the volunteers necessary to get a native Windows build. Nearly anything
like that will build and run on CygWin.
On 10/26/06, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:
I don’t agree. When I have to remember how to get to a different
drive (because Windows, unlike Unix, has separate roots), then there’s
a significant impedance mismatch. When bash is, IME, 3x slower than
cmd.exe, there’s a significant impedance mismatch.
Bash is probably slower, but I like it better.
I use bash whenever I’m on a Unix. I’m quite proficient in it (I just
spent most of the last six weeks of my time working on ksh and bash
scripts that we use at work). It doesn’t work so well on Windows
because it wasn’t made for Windows.
It seems to work OK for me.
Yes, you can. Why do you want to?
Because I prefer UNIX tools over Windows, and Cygwin is nice when I’m
stuck
with Windows.
Impedance mismatch. Major impedance mismatch. Cygwin is not a
solution. It’s a surrender. It’s saying “I’m not interested in
actually getting things to work on this platform the way they should.”
Cygwin lets me use UNIX tools on Windows. I call that a solution 
It
makes Windows bearable.
There are times when Cygwin is the right choice. It is the absolute
wrong choice for anyone who needs to do software development related
to Windows.
If Cygwin does what I need it to do, then its the right choice for me.
I
think it helps a lot of people too.
I don’t do any Windows development, and if I did have to, I wouldn’t use
Cygwin for that.
–
Robert W. Oliver II
President, OCS Solutions, Inc. - Web Hosting and Development
Toll-Free Phone - 1-800-672-8415
OCS Ruby Forums - http://www.rubyforums.com/
My Blog - http://www.rwoliver.com/
On Oct 25, 6:15 pm, David V. [email protected] wrote:
Whooops…
David V.
David, David, David …
You know it could be like this. Just like this. Always.
Best,
James
On 10/26/06, Robert O. [email protected] wrote:
One thing we all agree on is that Ruby is a wonderful language, whatever
platform its on!
Unless it’s on Windows, where it is ultra, ultra slow.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs