Austin Ziegler wrote:
Charles: Go back to your bigot hole. Until you actually know what you're
talking about, you have no business in this particular discussion,
because you're merely spewing misinformation and bigotry.
Ummm... Maybe you should look in the mirror. I'm not sure which bigotry I'm supposed to be spewing here.
Frankly, cmd.exe is a lot better than most people think that it is.
I've never needed anything else, and prefer using cmd.exe than
cygwin/bash on Windows.
The things that drive me crazy about cmd.exe, and the reason I'd
personally be looking for a replacement, are:
* Ridiculously hard to copy/paste
Um. If you have "QuickEdit" on (I *always* do), then any mouse
selection will set up copy. Enter is required to make it happen.
The column copy mode by default is ridiculous.
Bollocks. The "smart" copy on Unix (that I've been dealing with since
1990 when I had access to the Sun lab at Boston University) is what's
stupid.
Right. Highlighting the text you want. Really stupid. What horrors will they think of next?
* Inability to resize the number of columns on the fly
This isn't something that has affected me often, but if you have
something where you want to unwrap long output, I can see that it
might bother you (because the shell forces a \r\n).
I find that this can be a real problem (especially when running other
people's programs)
I find it rarely. Usually running other people's programs. Maybe you
just don't know how to run programs cleanly on Windows, or you want to
treat Windows like Unix and kvetch when it doesn't work right.
Uhhh... Sure dude. Windows (or specifically, NTFS) works fine. So does Cygwin. Being able to resize your window, however, is something that *many* people find useful.
The block selection is sometimes convenient and the command history
and path completion aren't substandard, but those are about the best
things I can say about it.
Well, the other "best" thing is that it doesn't force you to adopt a
non-standard filesystem view.
I think you don't understand the point of Cygwin: "Cygwin is a
Linux-like environment for Windows." If you don't like linux, then
don't use Cygwin.
Don't go there. You don't know me, you don't know *shit* about what I
like or don't like. What I don't like are asinine platform bigots like
you who come spewing misinformation and bile.
You're the one who started trashing Cygwin.
And no, Cygwin isn't a
Linux-like environment. It's a POSIX environment. It's also unstable,
unreliable, and badly configured by default.
Yes. Cygwin is a posix emulation for Windows. For the record, the quote is from the Cygwin web page, so you can take it up with them. As for being badly configured, well, then maybe you just don't know how to do it correctly. I've been using it for years without any problems.
FWIW, I *do* use Cygwin. When I have to. I also mostly use it for X so
that I can do ddd (or the equivalent) on the various Unix boxes for
which I develop. And have developed for a *long* time.
Congratulations.
If you're never going to work in a posix environment, then finding a
good shell in windows is probably what you want to do. If, however,
you work both in Windows and Linux-land, then there aren't very
Wrong. Good developers know to use the best tools available for their
platform. On Linux, that's Xterm and descendants. On Windows, that's
*not* cygwin.
It's true just because you say so. Ohhh.. Sorry. I didn't realize who you were.
I do all of my Ruby development on Windows boxes. Those who were at
RubyConf last year saw my primary development platform (a Tablet PC).
Well, that explains a lot.
Yes, it does. It explains that I like cool geek toys and am not a
platform bigot. Can you say the same, Chuck?
Sure, Ass (err, sorry, Aus). If you think I'm not a platform bigot, then you *really* have to get out there. Cygwin runs on the Windows platform, no?
Charles
