Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Aug 2005 17:47 UTC
General Unix Cygwin is a great alternative for those who feel constrained by working with the Windows environment. Cygwin lets you employ the best parts of each environment to fit your needs, whether through porting and development of applications, or simply using the applications in this flexible, powerful system.
Permalink for comment 16449
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Cygwin VS SFU ?
by Anonymous on Wed 10th Aug 2005 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Cygwin VS SFU ?"
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've used both quite a bit, and I've decided that SFU is better, hands down.

I'm sure you have, provided that you spout the same BS as I see from MS, giving lots of half truths.

Firstly, it's free (as in beer) like Cygwin.

You forgot to say it is not free as in speech like Cygwin. Which is a HUGE drawback. First, it means SFU platform will never be recognised by the GNU tools, which destroys most of your arguments below.

SFU drastically cuts down on overhead and thus has better performance than Cygwin.

You forgot to say that thus SFU is full of major bugs, far more than Cygwin.
Like the NFS support, it's so poor it is unusable in any corporate environment, it is not even suitable for home environment.

Thirdly, to install more software in SFU, you can either extract tarballs and do ./configure;make;make install; just like you would in Cygwin or anywhere else, but you can also use NetBSDs "pkgsrc" package, which gives you access to any package distributed with NetBSD (which is more than enough to satisfy my needs).

Which of course is false, because most useful GNU or other packages (you know, those that depend on configure) just won't compile directly on SFU. Perhaps NetBSD is enough to satisfy your need, it is also very poor needs compared to what Cygwin offers.

Reply Parent Score: 0