Re: What is the more popular UNIX flavor?

On Dec 8, 2:52 pm, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-12-08, Mister.Fred...@xxxxxxxxx <Mister.Fred...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Dec 7, 5:53 am, jpd <read_the_...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That would depend on what respective versions you were using,
would it not?

Did you mean version of solaris or cygwin? Assuming you mean
solaris, why would it matter? The solaris system I was using went
through

Re-read the sentence. He refers to the versions of _both_ systems.

Please reread the message you responded to and over-zealously
snipped. Your comment is redundant.

continual upgrades, but the problem was that a plain user had to go
through many hoops to "make" applications of interest and tailor
the build process to the environment (details of which the user
might not be familiar with). Sometimes, they build is successful,
with enough detours to build prerequisite software. At least, that
was my experience. Cygwin upgrades and inclusion of packages of
interest were really painless.

This is a silly point to argue about. You appear to be complaining
that it is easier to install a pre-built package than it is to take
a source archive, unpack it, configure and compile it and finally
install it. This surprises you? It is like buying a kit car and
then complaining that you have to put it together before you can
drive it away.

I'm trying to make sense of the above paragraph. On one hand you seem
to have a chip on your shoulder about the comparison I make about my
experience with Solaris and Cygwin (lord nows why). On the other
hand, you confirm my opinion that installing things on Solaris is
harder, notwithstanding your obfuscating analogy.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't strictly speaking from an administrative
perspective. Cygwin is but a thin veneer that makes windows more
usable but it cannot make it a full unix.

Yes, that was my impression of his meaning. I was wondering if he
could provide examples of functionality that users would typically
want out of full unix but can't get on cygwin. I'm not saying it
doesn't exist. I might even agree with him, given examples that I
could relate to.

My complaints about the Unix-on-Windows systems in general is that
you simply don't know what they are going to do. Hard links?
Sparse files? Most of the systems support these things but you are
never quite sure how and if they are really doing the Right Thing or
some ugly kludge simply to get things working regardless of what is
happening under the hood. Then of course, they are all incomplete
to a greater or lesser extent. If you find yourself needing eg tftp
you only need to activate on a Unix system. It'll probably need
installing first on the equivalent Windows system.

Oh, it isn't that hard to figure out what they're doing for a guru
like yourself. It's pretty well described in their documentation.
What isn't described can be brought up in their forum.

BTW, tftp does show up under a cygwin package search. Installing it
involves checking a box. Not sure why this would be considered
onerous.

Anyway, I related my experience, and I'm not claiming that it
represents yours. I never ran into the difficulties you describe. My
experience with Cygwin has been much better than with Solaris, for the
reasons described. Whether you consider Cygwin to be a kluge is not
important to many people -- whatever is "happening under the hood", it
does what is needed/wanted with minimal fuss. Hence, it is doing the
Right Thing. I don't see how that can be considered "ugly"; quite the
opposite, really.

Perhaps I shouldn't have presumed an understanding that people use
unix in different ways, and therefore have different requirements of
their unix boxes.

However, I thank you for providing those examples I requested, since
it gives me an idea of what is lacking, at least for some segment of
unix users.

You're right, IT people in the places I've worked are pretty
"attentive" about PC security. But in my experience, there's never
been a problem. This is not to say that invasions of PCs on a
workplace network doesn't happen. It is just that I've been lucky
enough never to have seen it, and I hope never to see it. On the
other hand, I've seen a solaris system commandeered by intruders
from overseas, who set up hidden servers doing who knows what (I
didn't ask). I believe it was an educational experience. I guess
I should clarify that I am referring to professional environments,
be it work or university. In my experience, the default in such
environments is for people to not have local PC admin privileges,
and those who do have shown enough awareness to not routinely use
such privileged accounts.

If you've never seen malware on a Windows system I doubt how much
experience you actually have.

I didn't claim to have a specific amount of experience, but this seems
to be an issue for you. As I said, "in my experience" means that it
doesn't reflect your experience, specifically so that you don't get
all up in arms about it (I have some idea of how touchy people can be
about their operating systems). My meaning should have been blatantly
obvious from the follow-on sentences.

You've also misinterpretted "never been a problem" to mean "never seen
malware". I've advised colleagues to scan for malware, and some
relatively innocuous ones were found, and I've received spam
apparently from colleagues who I know didn't send them. But nothing
that really interrupted everyday activities much.

It is truly endemic in many places. Also, many commercial
establishments are not the big organisations with hundreds of users
and dedicated IT departments that you seem to suggest. They are
much smaller outfits, maybe half a dozen machines, possibly
networked. There is no IT department, just someone around who knows
a little more about computers than the others. Those are the places
where you have trouble.

Granted, not all businesses are big, but isn't this thread about
people interested in using Unix? It is reasonable to assume that they
are not the regular end user and have a bit more familiarity with OS's
-- even with the security paranoia required for Windows. Even if they
don't know much about Windows, most are bound to have heard that you
need to be careful about security.

So your argument is one that reflects the status quo, and I'm
saying the status quo does not represent best current practices.

I got a bit lost in that last sentence. You made a number of
points about current practice. Which deficiency about the status
quo you are referring to?

The standard practices of your typical Windows user. Running as a
privileged user as default, installing and possibly removing various
pieces of crap from e.g. magazine cover discs that they don't need
simply to have a play with them. Not backing up. Poor security
settings because no one can be bothered...

OK, thanks for clarifying. However, wasn't this thread about people
interested in Unix? You snipped all that -- I'm not sure why.

Now, back to the original thread, which asked what unix systems were
being used. Whether you personally like Cygwin or not (for whatever
reason), many users do, and they use it alot. Furthemore, in a
corporate environment, it's often the only unix option available for
one's personal computer.

I can attest that from a user's standpoint, cygwin does everything
that I've ever wanted out of a Unix box and much more (since it lets
me administrate, couples so well with Windows, and simplifies
applications inclusion/upgrade). This includes my experience using
solaris, HPUX, and linux. I'm sure there are some for whom this is
not true, but it is for them to write about their experiences.

On top of that, I have full and simultaneous access to my Windows
XP/2000 environment at the same time. This is utterly invaluable for
interactivity with others.

I would also hazard a guess that for those trying to transition to
unix, such a mixed environment is far gentler and impacts productivity
much less than throwing the poor bugger whole-hog into an unix
environment devoid of Windows. However, I've only encountered crusty
unix veterans trying to co-exist with Windows rather than Windows
veterans wanting to go Unix. Therefore, I retract that guess (which
might have raised lots of uninteresting debate).

In closing, when the motivations to use Cygwin are compared to the
shortcomings cited above, which I've never heard of before this
posting, the pro's far outweigh the con's for my purposes.

Cheers!

Fred
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the more popular UNIX flavor?
    ... about my experience with Solaris and Cygwin. ... installing packages. ... needing eg tftp you only need to activate on a Unix system. ... probably need installing first on the equivalent Windows system. ...
    (comp.unix.questions)
  • Re: Open source mail server on windows, oh my...
    ... > Life under windows would be unbearable without cygwin. ... plus UNIX servers is the answer for servers under Windows. ...
    (comp.os.linux)
  • Re: Open source mail server on windows, oh my...
    ... > Life under windows would be unbearable without cygwin. ... plus UNIX servers is the answer for servers under Windows. ...
    (comp.os.linux.questions)
  • Re: What is the more popular UNIX flavor?
    ... experience with Solaris and Cygwin. ... installing packages. ... I prefer Microsoft's grossly-misnamed Windows Services for Unix ...
    (comp.unix.questions)
  • Re: Sun Drops Its Linux Distribution
    ... Linux isn't Unix. ... It's just a UNIX wannabe kernel for PCs. ... >> adding non UNIX features to the SOLARIS UNIX kernel. ... Take a Windows, OpenVMS or MAC course. ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)