Steve, Fair enough. Just a different data point: At one place I worked (with mandated Windoze boxes) I brought in my own beige box Linux PC and put it on my desk next to my corporate PC. I used the Linux box for about 65% of my work, and the Windoze box for 35%. Several other engineers did the same thing. Although it was against corporate "policy", the sysadmin was a cool guy -- a big, bald and bearded Harley rider who was also a Linux-head. His stated policy w.r.t. pirate Linux on the engineer's desktops was "don't ask, don't tell." It worked fine.
At my current job we are mandated to use Windoze ExPee, Viewdraw and PADS, although since Feb 1st we lost our licence to these design packages since the last CAD administrator resigned months ago, and mgt forgot to appoint somebody else to pay the yearly licence bill. LOL! Anyway, I bring my Linux laptop at work to crank out knock-off boards using gEDA when nobody is looking. I don't tell anybody about it, except this list! ;-) Stuart > > Stuart, > > I use Cygwin EVERY day on a Windows box that I have to keep Windows. It > allows me to use Xterms, a familiar command sequence and have a command > line capability on what otherwise wants to be a GUI system. I expect I > am a typical user. I can't put Linux on this box because of other > applications I HAVE to run for work. So Cygwin is a great idea TODAY > for my uses. > > Steve Wilson > > Stuart Brorson wrote: > > Actually, Cygwin was probably a good idea about 10 years ago. > > However, nowadays you can throw Linux on any garden variety PC, so why > > bother to fool around with Cygwin? > > > > Stuart > > > > > > > >> As I dig through the archives, I see this topic coming up from time to > >> time. > >> However, I don't understand the history behind why cygwin is not supported > >> using the standard build scripts. > >> > >> It appears (after testing for a month) that building under cygwin is > >> possible with minor changes to the source (based on sources from the 2005 > >> geda suite ISO and the cygwin 5.0 setup program). For instance, the > >> hardest > >> was in gnetlist given a strange interaction with *optarg being defined in > >> parsecmd.c (commenting out the unneccessary declaration fixed the problem). > >> > >> Either I'm way off the beaten path (and nobody else cares), or I'm missing > >> something during my testing and will hit it when I get around to doing > >> something useful. > >> > >> Larrie. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >
