4 ms·

Wait until you find out CygWin is a thing for decades and you could've used Linux style under Windows all this time

by unnouinceput 6y ago

naikrovek 6y ago
Not at all the same. Not at all.
- girvo 6y ago
  I mean sure it’s not, but back in the late 2000s I did everything under it and it made for a great experience. It’s little package manager was handy, everything I needed was there, it worked surprisingly well.
  - 40four 6y ago
    I agree. I recently bailed on WSL because my poor crappy laptop was buckling under the weight of the extra resource demand. I’m not using Cygwin, but similarly, I decided to trick out my git bash with extra packages from MSYS2. I have all the Linux tools I need, been having a great experience with it. The amount of resources it takes to run WSL, or a virtual box on older hardware can be devastating. You don’t hear this mentioned much.
    - naikrovek 6y ago
      WSL1 doesn't use a virtual machine, and only implements Linux syscalls as NT kernel syscalls. There's no VM or OS overhead; WSL1 is 100% userland software, except for the kernel translation stuff. You should not have any issues with WSL1 in terms of system load or "weight" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean in computer terms. This is used all the time and I've never once seen a definition for it. What is the unit of measurement? What's the border between "lightweight" and "not lightweight?" This industry as a whole ingests far too many hallucinogens. )
- heresie-dabord 6y ago
  Cygwin offers excellent out-of-the-box GNU userland functionality. It is fast and open-source, with a generous set of packages and languages. I can pin it and have a stable, internally consistent GNU userland. Very good for a developer using several interpreted languages. Cygwin has its quirks and flaws, like any software. But so does a full distro (Ubuntu, no less) running inside Windows 10.
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    WSL1 isn't a full distro, it's only the userland stuff. You can also easily make your own userland in Linux, tar it up the deploy it as a WSL environment. It's really nice.
nitrogen 6y ago
There was even a period of time when Cygwin's X server supported GLX and I managed to get some OpenGL software I wrote for Linux to run in Cygwin, but for some reason it was removed or stopped working.
- andrewmackrodt 6y ago
  You can still accomplish this with the cygwin packages xorg-server and xinit. You can then export DISPLAY=:0 in your bash shell and have working OpenGL, e.g. glxgears assuming you have the necessary packages available in your "remote" session/WSL. Here's a GitHub gist I use for this: https://gist.github.com/andrewmackrodt/b53943185bbbd804ef4b06cd62503340 https://gist.github.com/andrewmackrodt/b53943185bbbd804ef4b0...

Wait until you find out CygWin is a thing for decades and you could've used Linux style under Windows all this time

naikrovek 6y ago

Not at all the same. Not at all.

girvo 6y ago
I mean sure it’s not, but back in the late 2000s I did everything under it and it made for a great experience. It’s little package manager was handy, everything I needed was there, it worked surprisingly well.
- 40four 6y ago
  I agree. I recently bailed on WSL because my poor crappy laptop was buckling under the weight of the extra resource demand. I’m not using Cygwin, but similarly, I decided to trick out my git bash with extra packages from MSYS2. I have all the Linux tools I need, been having a great experience with it. The amount of resources it takes to run WSL, or a virtual box on older hardware can be devastating. You don’t hear this mentioned much.
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    WSL1 doesn't use a virtual machine, and only implements Linux syscalls as NT kernel syscalls. There's no VM or OS overhead; WSL1 is 100% userland software, except for the kernel translation stuff. You should not have any issues with WSL1 in terms of system load or "weight" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean in computer terms. This is used all the time and I've never once seen a definition for it. What is the unit of measurement? What's the border between "lightweight" and "not lightweight?" This industry as a whole ingests far too many hallucinogens. )
heresie-dabord 6y ago
Cygwin offers excellent out-of-the-box GNU userland functionality. It is fast and open-source, with a generous set of packages and languages. I can pin it and have a stable, internally consistent GNU userland. Very good for a developer using several interpreted languages. Cygwin has its quirks and flaws, like any software. But so does a full distro (Ubuntu, no less) running inside Windows 10.
- naikrovek 6y ago
  WSL1 isn't a full distro, it's only the userland stuff. You can also easily make your own userland in Linux, tar it up the deploy it as a WSL environment. It's really nice.

nitrogen 6y ago

There was even a period of time when Cygwin's X server supported GLX and I managed to get some OpenGL software I wrote for Linux to run in Cygwin, but for some reason it was removed or stopped working.

andrewmackrodt 6y ago
You can still accomplish this with the cygwin packages xorg-server and xinit. You can then export DISPLAY=:0 in your bash shell and have working OpenGL, e.g. glxgears assuming you have the necessary packages available in your "remote" session/WSL. Here's a GitHub gist I use for this: https://gist.github.com/andrewmackrodt/b53943185bbbd804ef4b06cd62503340 https://gist.github.com/andrewmackrodt/b53943185bbbd804ef4b0...