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)

BARRY WALKER | 11 Nov 20:50 2014

Newbie and CygWin with a difference.

Hi all...

My first call here.

A little story...

22 months ago on www-dot-unix-dot-com I wanted to learn bash shell scripting.
So I dropped a bit of bragging to the site saying that I was going to write
an app' with a difference although I knew absolutely no sehll scripting at all.

I decided on a fully calibrated kids level text mode storage AudioScope.

Over the 22 months this has evolved into something very serious.

It is at version 0.30.40 at the moment and does loads.

About 6 months ago I thought about including CygWin as a platform and after
much jiggery pokery it now is fully functional to the current level.

CygWin has 4 possible capture mocdes.

1) DEMO that use /dev/urandom so that no hardware is needed at all and is used
   as a learning hoe to use it mode.
2) /dev/dsp for low reolution captures.
3) SoundRecorder.exe for CD quality reolution captures.
4) Possibly SoX if the config file is edited manually.

It IS designed on a MacBook Pro and also has QickpTime Player as a capture and
I am also working on ALSA tools too.

(Continue reading)

Denis Excoffier | 10 Apr 19:36 2014



Is calimero dead (see latest `cat /proc/version`)?

Denis Excoffier.

Christopher Faylor | 14 Feb 21:45 2014

What I've always suspected



Design mixed 32 and 64 bit systems.

Technically, the following is off topic for this list.  But because
it is about what appears to me as a done deal - something that is too
late to change - I thought it might be off-topic for the main list.
We can move it there if you feel that appropriate.

As I understand it, 32 bit and 64 bit have to be in different directory
trees, e.g., C:\cygwin and C:\cygwin64.  As I understand it, that
is because they both look for /bin/cygwin1.dll and avoid getting the
wrong one by having different root directories.

My question is why 64 bit wasn't named cygwin2.dll?  32 bit would
be version 1.7.25 and the corresponding 64 bit version would be
2.7.25.  Could that have allowed a single, mixed, transitional,
64-except-32-when-no-64 installation?

Remember that I'm not a programmer and everything that I think that
I've learned about this topic I've picked up by read the cygwin
and cygwin-apps mailing lists.  So this is for my education and no
response is necessary.

Tomorrow, Cygwin and the community that supports it will be on my
list of things that I'm thankful for.


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

SxeerrocaReghoan | 28 Sep 11:00 2013

She was acquitted of two perjury charges.

Choctaw, Cherokee and Irish descent. Plans for a railroad linking San Francisco and San Jose began as early
as 1851.

GEORGE BARRICK | 23 Aug 19:21 2013

Q: about insectod4.gif

Q: about insectod4.gif

                                              2013.08.23.17:22:16 UT

Hello cygwin folks,

         I teach at a small branch campus of a university.
I administer my own win7 workstation, and greatly
value cygwin because it gives me access to linux-like
FOSS software.

         Over the past few weeks, I have noticed insectod4.gif
scampering around the cygwin main page when I visit to
download the updated installation program.  Personally,
I think insectod4 is kind of quirky and cute, but it makes
other persons nervous.  I agree, these folks are typically
far less experienced with installing/uninstalling software.
They are often people who cannot even use a browser
when presented with a linux box.  However, they _are_
people from whom I need political support when I advocate
for FOSS software at my institution.

           For my own part, I think that I can probably block
insectod4 on my browser, but this is clearly both a political
and an "image" issue.  Not even "stupid" people should be
led by any means to believe that cygwin might harbor
software that is either buggy or infectious.  All that I am
saying is that it would probably be best for insectod4 _not_
to appear on the cygwin main page.

(Continue reading)

zgintasz | 31 Dec 16:48 2012

command not found when running from batch


I'm trying to make building process easier. When I launch cygwin and run
build.sh script, everything is fine, but I want to launch this script from
batch file. I do this:

 <at> echo off
F:/cygwin/bin/bash --login -c "cd F:/Projektai/osdev && sh build.sh"

When I launch it, I get errors *i586-elf-gcc: command not found* and
*i586-elf-ld: command not found*. I can't find the solution, how can I fix


View this message in context: http://cygwin.1069669.n5.nabble.com/command-not-found-when-running-from-batch-tp95132.html
Sent from the cygwin OT chat mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Christopher Faylor | 24 Dec 16:56 2012

Interesting discussion on RMS, FSF, GPL



Christopher Faylor | 18 Dec 19:15 2012

Completely off-topic

[Well, maybe only 99.999% off-topic since I'm talking about something
that I read and I'm a cygwin developer]

One of my favorite comic strips is going web-only next month
and the author is looking for funding:


I am going for the gold plan so I have some artwork to hang in my


How cool would it be to raise enough money to have a Cygwin Hippo
included in the comic?

[Hey.  Now this is only 99.998% off-topic]


Christopher Faylor | 2 Nov 17:06 2012

The losing battle of TOFU

This isn't really Cygwin-related but I wonder if the battle against TOFU
is well and truly lost.  Very few people that I know use it.  It's not
even on anyone's radar as something that should be done.  Many email
readers default to it.

At NetApp, it's basically the wild west when it comes to quoting style.
Some people use the tried-and-true, "just forward it back along with
email headers".  Some people invent their own style, like bracketing
replies with their name.  No one puts the quotes first and their replies
after and hardly anyone (besides me) ever trims anything.

Just needed to vent.  Not using TOFU makes a lot of sense but I think
the battle is over.