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.
Thread beginning with comment 16317
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Cygwin VS SFU ?
by dillee1 on Wed 10th Aug 2005 07:51 UTC
dillee1
Member since:
2005-08-10

Anyone has used both of them extensively? Like compiling *nix tools on them or doing *nix devel work?

I have used Cygwin for a couple of years and am able to compile many *nix tools on it, sometime with minor tweaking on make files. Now does SFU compare in this area?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Cygwin VS SFU ?
by on Wed 10th Aug 2005 12:01 in reply to "Cygwin VS SFU ?"
Member since:

The only reason I install cygwin is for the xserver. Its trivial to get working and its stable. Even does opengl.

The cygwin installer is a huge pain, takes way too long to select what you want, I think that there is actually way too much crap^h^h^h^h stuff to choose from.

SFU gives you very few installation options in terms of optional stuff, by default it gives you more of a complete base and then you go away and add to it if you want.

SFU also gives you an NFS client/server. Never used the server, but as an NFS client it works once you sort out your user id mapping. I wouldn't say it was particularly fast, but I also have not compared it to CIFS.

I've never had to ask any support questions for SFU yet, but trying to resolve problems with the cygwin developers would have to be my worse support experience with anyone. Its the only open source group I've dealt with who are openly abusive to their users, complaining about what crap hardware they have, complaining about the lack of information in problem reports (but no advice on how to get more) etc. Maybe if they were helpful someone might give them some newer hardware...

In my experience cygwin leaks memory, does not do well on dual-processor boxes (to the point that I removed a cpu so that fork and make was reliable) and performance is pretty ordinary compared to the same binary compiled with win32. But thats what you get trying to map posix apis to win32.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: Cygwin VS SFU ?
by on Wed 10th Aug 2005 13:53 in reply to "Cygwin VS SFU ?"
Member since:

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

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

Secondly, it's built on the POSIX layer of the NT kernel. Cygwin has it's own POSIX abstraction layer running on top of the win32 API. The built-in NT POSIX layer is at the same level as the win32 API, so by using it directly, SFU drastically cuts down on overhead and thus has better performance than Cygwin.

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).

SFU also includes compiler wrappers to the VisualC++ compiler (which can be installed for free with the Visual C++ Toolkit).

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Cygwin VS SFU ?
by on Wed 10th Aug 2005 14:31 in reply to "RE: Cygwin VS SFU ?"
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