This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: CD-based distribution (was Another website....)
- To: cgw at pgt dot com
- Subject: RE: CD-based distribution (was Another website....)
- From: Robert dot Cross at scottish-newcastle dot co dot uk
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 09:03:17 +0100 (GDT)
- Cc: gnu-win32 at cygnus dot com
#But, NTEmacs is *not* "just as good". (I've used both XEmacs and
#NTEmacs extensively, and have been helping out a little with the
#XEmacs beta testing.)
I'll take your word for it, but I remain to be convinced, unless someone can
give me any good examples of XEmacs' superiority.
#XEmacs can be built for Windows in two different ways - there's a
#Cygwin version, and a native version. [snipped]
# But it would be madness to install *both*. Keeping both
#distributions up to date would be a major pain.
# > Some tools I have don't translate well to Win32, and require other
# > like Ghostscript, to function, hence provide these other programs.
#Cygwin is great for things that don't translate to Win32 - I think the
#idea of a Cygwin GIMP is great. I'm talking about tools (Tcl/Tk,
#Perl, Python) for which well-functioning native Win32 ports are
That's fine - I won't disagree. However, you've missed one of my points, that
that gnu-win32 is also good who want a proper 'unix' environment, whilst still
the Microsoft environment at the same time. This is quite useful for training
or minor, one-off
development, or for comparision purposes.
A side issue is that offering these packages gives the user the *freedom* to
native ports, or proper Unix versions. I have yet to see a WinNT version that
is as fully functional as
the equivalent Unix versions - doubtless you can probably name a few that are?
I suppose that the gnu-win32 distribution could conceivably include these
native ports instead
of the gnu-win32 versions - however *not* including them would leave the user
with an incomplete
system - bad move i.m.o.