2 ms·
With all the drawbacks that Cygwin entails. Plus the requirement to rebuild the code instead of just using the Linux-native ELF binary. Those are two things wi
by ygra 10y ago
With all the drawbacks that Cygwin entails. Plus the requirement to rebuild the code instead of just using the Linux-native ELF binary.
Those are two things with very different goals.
- kazinator 10y agoWhich drawbacks are those? (One is performance, unfortunately). Rebuilding the code is the norm in the GNU/Linux landscape. Is Ubuntu x86_64 built from Fedora x86_64 packages? Etc. The requirement "I want to run Linux stuff on Windows without rebuilding" is basically stupid, because you normally don't even run stuff from Linux distro A on Linux distro B without rebuilding. It sort of works for programs that have minimal, reasonably old dependencies.
- wtetzner 10y agoPeople like to use package managers to install thing in a Linux distro. Supporting binary compatibility means that they can just use apt instead of building something new, and rely on Canonical for creating packages.
- kazinator 10y agoIf you're using Ubuntu and relying on Ubuntu packages, that's not "binary compatibility". That's using Ubuntu binaries on Ubuntu. Ok, it's the trivial base case of binary compatibility: A is compatible with A. Ubuntu users do not pull down Fedora packages, right?
- wtetzner 10y agoI'm talking about Windows supporting binary compatibility with Ubuntu, so the Ubuntu userland can be run on Windows.