relica wrote:Indeed, both /bin and /usr/bin link to the bin directory where you installed cygwin. No, it's not usual on linux to have /usr/bin linked to /bin but it may happen. Why not try linux?
thats makes no sense to me, which leads into my resistance to learning Linux. BTW...you'll be sorry you asked that question.
I have tried several times, most recently with Red Hat Fedora 7. Let me try to explain that without insulting any Linux users. By the same token, I'm open to criticism or advice, even if it's from Delta or JMI to quit posting bombastic replies.
I'd love nothing more than to see Linux take over from Windows. I don't think there's a chance of that happening till the Linux crowd gets together and simplifies the OS and the documentation. It's way too complex for the average user to learn, and only someone who is driven by a hatred of Microsoft, or some other strong passion, could afford the time and energy to overcome the difficulties.
I realize Linux has gone a long way in that direction by introducing X-windows and making the installation more user friendly. There's still a long way to go, in my humble estimation. There's a saying that too many chefs spoil the broth. That's the problem I see in Linux. When I try to read Linux documentation, I get irritated by the assumptions and the jargon. Most of what I read presumes an understanding of what came before. When I studied engineering, one of my first lessons was that a drawing or document should be self-explanatory. It should stand on it's own with no support required from other documents or drawings.
What the heck am I doing asking questions in a Linux-based forum?? I'm still trying!!
I finally found a project that forced me to follow through, and that has helped. But it hasn't reduced my frustration much with learning Linux.
Please don't take this as an insult to your interest in Linux, I'm only expressing my frustration. I'm an old gaffer, in my 60's. I grew up in the era when Unix was king of the hill, and I don't miss that era one bit.
You can't begin to imagine how archaic it was, with teletypes and punch cards for entering data into a compiler. Even in the early '80's, when I worked as a computer tech, it was archaic. Hard Drives were 18" platters and held 5 megs of data. RAM was 4k (not meg), and that was on a minicomputer.
When I look at the Unix/Linux command line system, it sends shivers up my spine. It was designed for teletypes and punch card readers. I have tried to immerse myself in it but I keep asking myself why I'm doing it. A good parallel is the retro music industry. I also grew up with primitive electronic musical equipment, like analog synths which were monophonic (Moog) and the Fairlight, which was way ahead of it's time. Today, the Fairlight is a fossil, yet many young people are drawn to that technology, for whatever reason.
The same applies to vacuum tubes. I used to repair tube amps as a technician. Many people today claim tube amps are superior to solid state amps, but from the perspective of a tech who understands both, I think that's a load of hooey. Today's solid state amps are far superior to any tube amp ever built and their clarity is so superior that people mistake that for bad sound. What is heard in a tube amp is distortion, which adds fundamentals to the original sound, or filtering due to the whopping output transformers, making it sound warmer. You can do exactly the same thing with a solid state amp by adding effects, or using FETS, which don't cut off as sharply as BJT's.
I can't help getting that same retro feeling about the Linux/Unix OS's. That's purely personal, I realize, and is based on my past experiences. I am attracted to Linux because it's free and not put out by Microsoft. Also, I appreciate the packages available with Linux, like the gcc compiler, and the abilty to compile kernels, etc. Those are all bonuses. I even liked the KDE desktop, although I'm not quite sure why.
I just like it. It was Cygwin that rekindled my interest in Unix, mainly because I could jump back and forth between it and Windows.
You can keep the command line interface, however. I realize DOS is bottom end stuff, but it's all I ever need. If I want to to view a directory in DOS, I type dir. If I want it page by page, I type dir /p or dir|more. I have tried ls | more in both linux and cygwin and I find it's more miss than hit. What's with that?
I just typed ls | more in /usr/bin under cygwin and got:
/bin/more: line1: $'/r': command not found
followed by another 30 lines of similar errors.
I understood what you said above about /usr/bin being linked to /bin, but why couldn't bash figure that out? Both /usr/bin and /bin are in the PATH, but bash messes it up. I 'know' there will be a reason, but why is it so darned complex?
If an error like that occured once in a while, I could endure it. With Linux, it seems par for the course.
I would think it would simply flag an error, as in DOS. Instead, it is trying to do something else because it obviously doesn't understand the command. That's where I think DOS, albeit simplistic, is ahead of Unix for the average Joe. It deals only with it's command interpreter and if it doesn't understand it says so. Unix is so complicated it chokes if the input is not precise. For a university academic, that's fine. For Joe Blow, coming to Linux from DOS, it's far too complex, and unnecessarily so.
Why would the designers of DOS, Linux or Unix have a directory listing that runs the files by on the screen so fast that no one can read them? I'm sure there was a reason in 'the day', but why today? With the 'ls' command however, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to run it page by page without using a pipe. When you use a pipe like 'more', it leads to problems at times. DOS uses the command interpreter and it has certain basic commands in it. No matter what directory you're in, if you type 'dir' it will execute it, or flag an error. That doesn't seem to be true with the bash shell and it's probably because Unix doesn't use a directory structure like DOS. Everything is a file, which makes no sense to me intellectually.
I'm reluctant to give Bill Gates credit for anything. To me, he and Microsoft became successful despite themselves. They were in the right place at the right time. When they designed DOS, which I think was a ripoff of CP/M, they had all the advantages of knowing the pitfalls of the Unix system. In the early days of DOS, it was somewhat lacking, but for the average JOE, it was adequate. In those days, the claims made that Unix was vastly superior to DOS were true, but today, it's a moot point.
Command lines have gone the way of the dodo bird. Only a masochist works with the command line.
OK...I know they are necessary at times. I've been living on the command line recently, trying to build a Python debug version and trying to run makefiles from the Cygwin command line. I had completely forgotten about running the C compiler from the command line, however, because I hadn't done so for 20 or more years.
Please don't talk to me about emacs or vi. Like I said, I was around when they were invented. I was at university studying engineering in the mid-70's and studied Fortran as part of computer science. There were no personal computers, and anything done was on mainframes. When we wrote Fortran programs, we went through a convoluted process of data entry. First, we had to enter our programs line by line into an interpreter, which spat out punch cards. Then we took your cards to the Holy Grail, which was never seen, and humbly inserted our cards into a card reader. Then we bowed, as in the Seinfeld Soup Nazi skit, and waited. As often as not, we'd get back a printout claiming a syntax error and we'd have to start the process anew.
Emacs and vi remind me too much of that archaic system. They were obviously written under the constraints of teletypes, which were going through their death throws in the early '80's. There's no reason I can see to write files of any kind under a command line app. Anything you need can be done in windows environments. There's no need to fiddle with the complex nature of emacs or vi, unless you are constrained to command line Linux or Unix.
Please don't take this as an argument favouring DOS over Unix. Even I can see that Unix is way ahead of DOS as an OS, but I don't think it's way ahead of Windows NT. I'd be perfectly happy to carry on using XP if it were not for the stupidity and arrogance of Microsoft. I get so angry at them, over nonsense like Wizards (which are really Dummies), that I could spit. Microsoft always seems to find a way to hancuff the user, presumably because they think we're too stupid to figure things out. So, they take away the functionality of helping ourselves. Then there's the bs of designing an OS (Vista) to appease the Nazis in DRM.
The main problem I have in making the leap from Windows to Linux is the hassle of converting to a Linux system. Under Windows, I can find almost any app or driver I need to perform a function. I know Linux has come a long way, and I see the name Ubuntu a lot. I'm not sure that I can find the drivers I need under Linux to run printers, sound cards, etc. And how about running softice, or IDA?
I'd like to hear from anyone, like yourself, who has expertise in this.