On Apr 14, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Andrey Repin wrote: > >>> small things like cygpath > >> A cygpath like facility is neither useful nor needed in UfW. > > Which means, I can't call diff between files on my file manager's two panels?
Sure you can. c:\tmp\foo.txt is seen as /mnt/c/tmp/foo.txt inside the UfW box. That is, /mnt under UfW behaves much like /cygpath under Cygwin. The only difference between UfW and Cygwin in this regard is that UfW doesn’t have any fallbacks for mixed-mode and DOS-style style paths. Only POSIX paths work, which is the recommended way of working with Cygwin, too. Microsoft is bypassing one of the most troublesome areas of day-to-day Cygwin use here by refusing to accept anything but POSIX paths. (Open question: does UfW’s Bash shell accept UNC paths?) >> Ubuntu with severe limitations >> is still highly useful; witness Raspian. > > Raspian is an operating system. > This… this, I don't know how to call it, but it's a complete joke. Hyperbolic much? I’d say UfW checks off most of the defining characteristics of an OS: there’s a separate kernel and userland, it does scheduling, mediates IPC, keeps processes from stomping on each other… About the only thing it doesn’t do is privilege separation, but if that’s a necessary qualification for a thing to be an OS, a Linux box booted into single-user mode isn’t an OS, either. You could also think of it as a Linux personality on top of the NT microkernel, and it’s the microkernel that’s the OS. >> A concrete example: All those soul-patch web developers choose to carry Mac >> laptops not just because they’re the hipster choice, but because Node runs >> much better under OS X than Windows. That proposition wholly changes in >> this UfW world: run node.js in the Ubuntu box and connect to it over the >> OS’s shared network stack from the Windows GUI browser of your choice. > > At the same time, you could run any given VM and get much better options and > choices. You can make the same argument about Cygwin. And yet, despite the free availability of top-quality VM technology, Cygwin continues to thrive. UfW won’t fill 100% of the use cases of Cygwin from day 1, but for a lot of cases, the two will be interchangeable, so that the choice between them comes down to some practical consideration. setup.exe vs Windows Store, Ubuntu package repo size vs Cygwin package repo size, native app speed vs the Cygwin DLL POSIX emulation speed hit, native Windows interaction vs siloed subsystems, etc. >> I expect it to be quite usable in a matter of months. > > I wouldn't be so hasty. If there's no interfacing between subsystems, it is as > useful as running a VM. Read: useless crap, when it is going to usability. Re: “useless” “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya >>> I just hope it does not interfere too much with my Cygwin setup > >> UfW will be completely independent of Cygwin. >> More’s the pity, because it means you’ll be incentivized to choose one or >> the other, likely to Cygwin’s net detriment. > > Since it will be independent of Windows as well as Cygwin, the choice is a > nobrainer. If that is your decision for yourself, that’s perfectly fine. However, I predict that a whole lot of people will find uses for this technology, thereby making it “useful,” by definition. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
