On Jan 3, 6:13 pm, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dave, > it makes no sense to compare cygwin and virtualbox by Googlehits. > Cygwin is just a tool to port Unix software to Windows quickly > and relatively painlessly (at least the "command-line" software > can usually be ported pretty quickly). Cygwin is also a toolchain to > develop software on Windows (i.e. it has compilers, etc). > > Virtualbox is an emulator to run other operating systems > (e.g. Linux atop WIndows, or the other way aroung). So you can just > run a Linux program in your Windows box, unamended.
I realise the baic difference. I think Google hits provides some measuare of the usage of such tools, but it's not something we can use to get indisputable facts. > > Also, note that many parts of Sage are not developed by Sage > developers, e.g. Maxima, GAP. There is little chance that these parts > would be ported to Windows natively (on the other hand, e.g., GAP has > a Cygwin port, that is well-supported etc). I toyed with making a > native port of GAP to Windows some ten years ago. It was a highly > non-trivial task that would have taken me months back then (and then I > was relatively well-versed in Windows programming). > So a "native" port of Sage would still settle for Cygwin ports of some of its > modules. That was why thought such a port would take 10-30 man years. William and I disagree over what is a 'native' application, but as he said, the lawyers can argue that one out.
-- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
