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)

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.