Cygwin's 20 Birthday!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Corinna Vinschen [mailto:************** <at> ******.***]
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:37 AM
> To: cygwin-talk <at> cygwin.com
> Subject: Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy BIRTHday dear Cygwin, happy birthday to youuuuu
> Yes, really, Cygwin got 10 years old, 10 days ago.  The first entry in the ChangeLog was
>   Wed Oct 18 15:34:49 1995  steve chamberlain  <*** <at> *****.******.***>
> 	* Moved from newlib.
> after newlib was pregnant for three months:
>   Wed Jun 28 18:34:54 1995  Steve Chamberlain  <*** <at> *****.******.***>
> 	* configure.in (i[345]86-*-pe):  New target (NT).
> 	* host/any: DLLTOOL new.
> 	* libc/sys/win32/{crt0.c, kernel32.def, longjmp.c, setjmp.c, syscalls.c
> 	wintypes.h,sys/file.h,sys/resource.h}: Preliminary support for
> 	WIN32 (just enough to cross host the comp-tools).
> Will Cygwin still exist in another 10 years?  Well, I'm positive.
> Corinna

Right you were!

(Continue reading)

Jan Bruun Andersen | 12 Sep 03:54 2015

The dangers of mounting

So, I have just wasted several hours trying to figure out why a backup
program kept screaming about access denied to my .bash_history.

I learned about the intricacies of Windows' ICACLS utility. I
refreshed my memory about ATTRIB. I rebooted. I reinstalled all of
Cygwin. I deleted my .bash_history. And I still got an error message
pointing to C:\cygwin\home\andersen\.bash_history.

Then it hit me. I had mounted C:/Users on /home.

So that .bash_history that I spent hours exercising, the one I had
deleted, changed permissions on, was

C:\Users\andersen\.bash_history, not

Now I'm off to bed.

Tomasz Pona | 10 Sep 13:23 2015

GCC 4.8 & cygwin32 vs. cygwin64 packages and installers

Hello All,

I've been writing the Cygwin list ages ago, so welcome again.

For many years since my last visit I haven't bumped into any Cygwin 
problem I couldn't cope with myself, so many thanks to all Cygwin devels 
for your good job.
But now I run into a real problem with GNU GCC packages availability and 
how they're presented in the installer.

My GCC availablity problem:
I need to work with GCC 4.8, but it isn't available anymore for 
download. I uderstand obviousness of the versions succession, but the 
upgrade to 4.9 was done only recently and the choice is between 4.9.2 
and 4.9.3. I'd say this isn't significant version change. It'd be nice 
to have a choice at least between 4.8 and 4.9 and great to be able to 
work with several versions (since ~4.6) at once.

My installer package presentation problem:
I noticed the GCC 4.8 is still available as "cygwin64-gcc-" under 
"setup-x86" and as "cygwin32-gcc" under "setup-x86_64".
But I can't take any advantage of this, because:
- these packages land in separate cygwin/cygwin64 folders, like the'd be 
installed using the other installer
- "setup-x86" has no "cygwin32-gcc-"
- "setup-x86_64" has no "cygwin64-gcc-"
Why GCC 4.8 isn't available as a default package when it is as 

Maybe you could just loosen the package presentation/availability rules 
(Continue reading)

Warren Young | 6 Aug 23:09 2015

Windows 10 console slightly less horrid than before



0. The console window is now resizable.  Like, by dragging on the window edges.  You know, like in Windows 2.0. 
Wow!  :)

1. Text selection and pasting now works line-by-line, not as a block of unrelated lines.  ...Just like every
*ix terminal program since forever.

2. Extensive keyboard text editing.  It's not up to the standards of xterm plus Bash’s emacs mode, but
it’s far better than they had before.

3. Keyboard copy/paste, in Windows-native flavor (Ctrl-C/V/X) and xterm flavor (Ctrl/Shift-Ins). 
Unfortunately, no xterm-like mouse copy/paste.

I’m not giving up mintty and Bash, but it’s nice to know the occasional dip into cmd.exe won’t be such a
sharp shock.

It has now been a year since cgf withdrew from cygwin


Gone but not forgotten.

And always appreciated.

And for those who didn't understand his final salutation:
    Felly hir a diolch am yr holl bysgod.
    So long, and thanks for all the fish.

- Barry
  Disclaimer: Statements made herein are not made on behalf of NIAID.

Warren Young | 8 Jul 22:00 2015

Vim wins again. :)

Those who have been paying attention to the Linux Journal’s Reader’s Choice Awards for years, as I
have, watched as Vim continually increased its lead over Emacs to the point that they didn’t even bother
asking in the most recent survey.  When they asked in 2013, Emacs was at about 10%, behind Vim, gedit, and Kate:


It is interesting to compare those results to the Stack Overflow Developer Survey:


You can see the overpowering influence of Windows and OS X here in the top two choices: NotePad++ (blech!)
and Sublime Text (yay!).  

Sublime Text is greatly improved by the Vintageous plugin, which allows Sublime to emulate Vim so well that
I like it far better than gVim.


Although I didn’t much mind paying for Sublime Text as a product, I do worry about it disappearing.  Visual
Studio Code could woo away enough Sublime users that its developer may simply have to abandon it:


Thoughts from the other editor geeks here?
UFRJLu | 2 Jun 16:34 2015


Hi everyone,
I am and end user trying to use a instalation manual that say wich modules I
should install ( LYNX , BC and UTIL ) . Unfortunetly they do not have the
saba names on the latest CYGWIN version. Please any idea of wich modules I
should install? 
Thanks in advance.

View this message in context: http://cygwin.1069669.n5.nabble.com/MODULES-LYNX-BC-and-UTIL-AND-versions-tp118676.html
Sent from the cygwin OT chat mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Jyh-Shyong Ho | 21 May 16:39 2015

earlier gcc version installation

Dear Cygwin users,

I have a program which I compiled with gcc/gfortran in a Cygwin/CygwinX 
environment several years ago, however, I am not able to build the same 
program with the gcc/gfortran (4.9.2) in the latest version of 
Cgywin/CygwinX.  I tried to install the older version of gcc/gfortran 
(4.6.x) on the current Cygwin/CugwinX so I can build my program again, 
but I have not been successful.

I wonder if it is possible to build an older version of gcc on the 
current Cygwin environment?  Installing version 5.1.0 of gcc on the 
current Cygwin seems OK.


Jyh-Shyong Ho, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
National Center for High Performance Computing
Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC

Shaddy Baddah | 5 May 07:13 2015

There seems to be a fair bit of this suddenly...



from Father Ted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Ted).



Porporato, Riccardo | 11 Mar 16:20 2015

File /etc/group is not created during initial Cygwin installation

I've the following problem. 
After installing latest Cygwin 2.870 (32 bit) the /etc/group file isn't present. Is there any workaround
to solve this issue, or it's just something I missed?


Warren Young | 8 Dec 23:59 2014

I have a dream: A modern scripting language everywhere

It’s sad that we still can’t count on stronger scripting languages than POSIX shell and Awk in 2014.  We
have many better languages, but none are part of POSIX, so we can’t count on having them everywhere.

Perl and Python are probably too big for The Open Group to make one of them a requirement for receiving the
right to use the Unix trademark.  I don’t see another organization that could move all *ix-likes to adopt
such a language.

If the standards groups won’t do it, that leaves us with de facto standards. Red Hat and Google are trying
to push Python for this, but I don’t think either has enough power to move competing organizations on
this.  And again, Python is too big to be part of a “small parts, loosely joined” OS definition.

Lua is small and liberally-licensed, but a bit too impoverished in its stock form to be an effective
improvement on the current state.

FSF failed to push Scheme/Guile into this role, for which I give thanks.

That’s part of the problem, of course: getting a bunch of fractious geeks to agree on a syntax.  Awk and Ksh
got into POSIX when AT&T + Sun had the combined might to force them through the process.  The *ix world is too
diffuse now for that.

I love the Javascript dialect (!) of Scheme.  Say what you want against JS; it could be better, but those who
say it’s the worst language on the planet are either ignorant or being hyperbolic.

But, fan though I am, I’ll quickly acknowledge that Javascript isn’t going to solve this problem any
time soon, either.  The universality of the web has pushed a JS interpreter onto pretty much every
computing device big enough to have a keyboard, but the only hope for turning it into an effective Unix
scripting language is coming via node.js, and they’re years away from adding enough library support to
JS to make it fit for such a battle.

I think only Ruby is powerful enough, small enough, and non-controversial enough to solve this.  It’s
(Continue reading)