3 ms·

I misread your comment and thought I agreed with everything you said until I re-read it! Wouldn't release software without testing it on a real box? We run al

I misread your comment and thought I agreed with everything you said until I re-read it! Wouldn't release software without testing it on a real box? We run all our production software on EC2. Much like it does on Linux? Oh no. Oh no. You are lost my friend.

csmuk 13y ago
This. Cygwin is not UNIX. It looks like it and runs UNIX tools but it has some gotchas that can shoot you in the toes and face if you move your stuff to another box.
- nocman 13y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to (or what exactly of dmourati's response you were agreeing with) . I never claimed that Cygwin was UNIX. Far from it. However, Cygwin gives me enough of a UNIX-like environment in Windows operating systems to make administering and developing software in them almost bearable. I'd rather not have to deal with Windows environments at all, but my work requires it, so I do the best I can. I don't have any problem moving things from box to box. If I administer a Windows machine, it will almost always have Cygwin on it. I do development and administration on them all the time. I'd be curious to know what kind of "stuff" you were moving to another box that gave you trouble. Perhaps you were talking about moving executables/DLLs between different versions of Cygwin. I keep my machines mostly on the same version of Cygwin, and I'm not developing Cygwin-specific applications, so I'm not linking to the Cygwin DLLS, so I don't have problems with that.
kj34h4j4 13y ago
When my use-case is to administer a Windows system, Cygwin's property of being a native application is its advantage.
nocman 13y ago
I realize this is too late (I've been away from the computer for a few days), but I'll respond anyway. NO that's NOT what I meant. I meant that I wouldn't release software that was designed to run on, say Windows XP/7/8.x/..., without running it natively on a machine running those operating systems. I was NOT talking about virtualized Linux systems. I was talking about desktop software (since we were talking about Cygwin, I guess I thought that would be obvious, but perhaps I should have spelled that out). Yes, people do still write software for desktop operating systems (I realize that's a shock, and "how 1994 of them!", etc). Yeah, it is nice to have Virtualbox or VMWare, etc to test and debug on (so if something hoses the OS, you don't have to reboot the hardware, and stuff like that), but if the app is targeted at a desktop OS, I'll be testing it in a non-virtualized environment at some point. I wouldn't rely strictly on testing in a Windows VM running in Virtualbox under Linux. Call me paranoid if you want, but I still think it makes good sense. I do production stuff that runs on a Linux VPS also. That's an entirely different ball game. I'd have absolutely no problem releasing that software after only running it on a virtualized system. Of course, in that case, the target environment is a virtualized system, so the production environment is the same as the development environment. So, that's my response to you if you were being serious. If you were just trying to be funny, then ... oh never mind. :-D

csmuk 13y ago

This. Cygwin is not UNIX. It looks like it and runs UNIX tools but it has some gotchas that can shoot you in the toes and face if you move your stuff to another box.

nocman 13y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you are objecting to (or what exactly of dmourati's response you were agreeing with) . I never claimed that Cygwin was UNIX. Far from it. However, Cygwin gives me enough of a UNIX-like environment in Windows operating systems to make administering and developing software in them almost bearable. I'd rather not have to deal with Windows environments at all, but my work requires it, so I do the best I can. I don't have any problem moving things from box to box. If I administer a Windows machine, it will almost always have Cygwin on it. I do development and administration on them all the time. I'd be curious to know what kind of "stuff" you were moving to another box that gave you trouble. Perhaps you were talking about moving executables/DLLs between different versions of Cygwin. I keep my machines mostly on the same version of Cygwin, and I'm not developing Cygwin-specific applications, so I'm not linking to the Cygwin DLLS, so I don't have problems with that.

kj34h4j4 13y ago

When my use-case is to administer a Windows system, Cygwin's property of being a native application is its advantage.

nocman 13y ago

I realize this is too late (I've been away from the computer for a few days), but I'll respond anyway. NO that's NOT what I meant. I meant that I wouldn't release software that was designed to run on, say Windows XP/7/8.x/..., without running it natively on a machine running those operating systems. I was NOT talking about virtualized Linux systems. I was talking about desktop software (since we were talking about Cygwin, I guess I thought that would be obvious, but perhaps I should have spelled that out). Yes, people do still write software for desktop operating systems (I realize that's a shock, and "how 1994 of them!", etc). Yeah, it is nice to have Virtualbox or VMWare, etc to test and debug on (so if something hoses the OS, you don't have to reboot the hardware, and stuff like that), but if the app is targeted at a desktop OS, I'll be testing it in a non-virtualized environment at some point. I wouldn't rely strictly on testing in a Windows VM running in Virtualbox under Linux. Call me paranoid if you want, but I still think it makes good sense. I do production stuff that runs on a Linux VPS also. That's an entirely different ball game. I'd have absolutely no problem releasing that software after only running it on a virtualized system. Of course, in that case, the target environment is a virtualized system, so the production environment is the same as the development environment. So, that's my response to you if you were being serious. If you were just trying to be funny, then ... oh never mind. :-D