3 ms·

It's not so much that there's anything wrong with it, but it feels like a shim. Functionally, it's awesome, but it could do with sex-ing up a bit. I'm just envy

by acron0 13y ago

It's not so much that there's anything wrong with it, but it feels like a shim. Functionally, it's awesome, but it could do with sex-ing up a bit. I'm just envying the fact that Fish appears to have style; it's pretty. I like pretty.

mateuszf 13y ago
cygwin + mingw + zsh looks quite good to me. Been using this for few years now. EDIT: I meant mintty .. it is small, pretty and configurable.
yareally 13y ago
Try kitty + puttycyg with cygwin (or alternatively, just puttycyg[1], but it's no longer maintained and not as feature rich, but still works). I think that is what you're looking for from my own experience. You'll get all the features of putty and a 256 color terminal if you enable it, plus utf8 support. No local sshd required (I used to just ssh locally into cygwin with its built in sshd before I found puttycyg and kitty). [1] http://code.google.com/p/puttycyg/ http://code.google.com/p/puttycyg/
tezza 13y ago
Take a look at mintty: http://code.google.com/p/mintty/ http://code.google.com/p/mintty/
barrkel 13y ago
There is almost zero difference functionally or appearance-wise between my Cygwin shell (running in Console2) and my work Linux shell. Linux is much faster, primarily down to how reliant the Unix way is on forking and how much work Cygwin need to do to emulate that on Windows, but it's only noticeable when working with a lot of data that spawns O(n) processes. Such scripts can often be rewritten as shell pipelines that don't scale in the same way. E.g. instead of running grep once per file, do xargs grep and filter by filename prefix if necessary; or instead of running mv once per file for renaming multiple files, convert to equivalent CMD syntax and output to a temporary batch file, and run the batch file. I've got a number of scripts like these, implemented once for the Unix way, and again for Cygwin. But they don't come up all that often, and I haven't had to write one in years.

by acron0 13y ago

mateuszf 13y ago

cygwin + mingw + zsh looks quite good to me. Been using this for few years now. EDIT: I meant mintty .. it is small, pretty and configurable.

yareally 13y ago

Try kitty + puttycyg with cygwin (or alternatively, just puttycyg[1], but it's no longer maintained and not as feature rich, but still works). I think that is what you're looking for from my own experience. You'll get all the features of putty and a 256 color terminal if you enable it, plus utf8 support. No local sshd required (I used to just ssh locally into cygwin with its built in sshd before I found puttycyg and kitty). [1] http://code.google.com/p/puttycyg/ http://code.google.com/p/puttycyg/

tezza 13y ago

Take a look at mintty: http://code.google.com/p/mintty/ http://code.google.com/p/mintty/

barrkel 13y ago

There is almost zero difference functionally or appearance-wise between my Cygwin shell (running in Console2) and my work Linux shell. Linux is much faster, primarily down to how reliant the Unix way is on forking and how much work Cygwin need to do to emulate that on Windows, but it's only noticeable when working with a lot of data that spawns O(n) processes. Such scripts can often be rewritten as shell pipelines that don't scale in the same way. E.g. instead of running grep once per file, do xargs grep and filter by filename prefix if necessary; or instead of running mv once per file for renaming multiple files, convert to equivalent CMD syntax and output to a temporary batch file, and run the batch file. I've got a number of scripts like these, implemented once for the Unix way, and again for Cygwin. But they don't come up all that often, and I haven't had to write one in years.