On 8/21/2007 10:57 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: > Prof Brian Ripley wrote: >> Yes, >> >>> What is the advantage of building this? >> >> was my question too. If you want a Unix-like version of R on PC hardware >> running Windows why not run a Unix-like OS under a virtual machine? >> >> Quite a lot of the details are wrong: using FLIBS, BLAS_LIBS and LIBS as >> intended will solve most of the problems. I would use --disable-nls >> --disable-mbcs as you don't need them (and in particular you don't benefit >> from MBCS support on Windows unless you are in a CJK locale). >> >> Note that 2.5.1 is released and there is unlikely to be a 2.5.2, so any >> changes would be made only to R-devel. It there is a convincing case to >> tailor a build for Cygwin there we can probably do so rather easily, but >> the need for ongoing support would be a worry. >> >> (If platforms are not used and in particular not tested in the alpha/beta >> testing phases then the ability to build on them crumbles away. We seems >> to be down to regular testers on Linux, Windows, MacOS X, Solaris and >> FreeBSD, with some help on AIX after a patch with none.) > > I too have a workplace where Windows is the "official" IT-supported OS, > and in some cases open-source tools do not have a native Windows port, > thus needing Cygwin, or as you suggest, an embedded VMware Linux > workstation. I run Cygwin and a Gentoo Linux VMware guest on my Windows > machine. Having said that: > > 1. I consider the Windows version of R to have a *superior* user > interface to the Linux version. The only place where it falls down in my > opinion is the semi-difficult nature of building contributed packages > that require C or C++ or Fortran compilation.
And note that this is getting easier: we're down to a single "Rtools" download and install. > > 2. I know of few other open source communities that prefer a Cygwin > version to a native Windows version if the native version exists. Most > of them go further -- for example, the Ruby Windows people flat-out > deprecate the Cygwin Ruby port, even though it is slightly faster than > the native one and even though some C-language extensions won't build > except on the Cygwin version! > > In short, Cygwin is a crutch IMHO, and an embedded Linux VMware guest > isn't much better. I'm hoping to phase Cygwin out by the end of the > year. I think if you need Linux, you should run Linux. That's going to > require some patience and extreme people skills when you deal with your > IT department, but it can be done. But on Windows boxes, you're much > better off using only tools built for and tested on native Windows. I still use Cygwin, because I like the bash shell. But I don't build anything for Cygwin, I build native executables. (There are other versions of bash available on Windows, but I prefer the devil I know.) Duncan Murdoch ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
