| All Forums |
Register |
Login |
Search |
Subscriptions |
My Profile |
Inbox |
| Tool Warehouse |
FAQs |
Resources |
Help |
Member List |
Address Book |
Logout |
|
|
CoLinux is a better interix?
|
Logged in as: Guest |
| Users viewing this topic: none |
|
Login  |
|
|
 CoLinux is a better interix? - Jan. 14, '05, 2:54:26 AM
|
|
|
cgrozea
Posts: 4
Joined: Dec. 30, '04,
Status: offline
|
I cannot claim I fully understand any of those (interix/sfu, colinux: http://www.colinux.org ).
Just that both seems to have a similar approach, and they are both free.
In terms of speed they are both comparable and both much faster than cygwin.
The big advantage of colinux over the other two (sfu/interix and cygwin) is that you can have a full and standard linux distribution - forget about #ifdef INTERIX, forget about not having the latest gcc you want! Just apt-get install ANY package, not only the 60 something oldish ones available for interix.
Disclaimer:
I am not affiliated with any of those.
I don't mean to be harsh on any approach - probably each has some unique merits.
My purpose is to inform people which, like me, struggled to overcome the limitations of interix and to bear with the slowliness of cygwin.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CoLinux is a better interix? - Jan. 14, '05, 10:52:20 AM
|
|
|
markfunk
Posts: 670
Joined: Mar. 31, '03,
Status: offline
|
fyi: colinux is not at all like Interix.
Colinux has the behaviour/characteristics of Linux running using VMWare
or Microsoft Virtual PC. What you have is a virtual OS running as a process in Windows. There is no way to communicate between these environments
except through a network interface (ie as if you had 2 physical machines;
one running Windows and the other running Linux).
If you are currently using VMWare or Virtual PC, then you'd be interested
in colinux.
If you are using Interix/cygwin/MKS toolkit/Uwin, then you are not
so interested in colinux.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CoLinux is a better interix? - Jul. 28, '05, 12:38:52 AM
|
|
|
ivandn
Posts: 4
Joined: Jul. 28, '05,
Status: offline
|
What is the advantages / disadvantages of using interix vs MKS toolkit?
Does MKS toolkit utilize Microsoft's UNIX services infrastructure?
Which is a more stable environment to have has a development environment for unix code compiled for Windows?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CoLinux is a better interix? - Jul. 28, '05, 1:57:11 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3714
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: online
|
There are pros and cons to using either system.
The MKS solution is more expensive for one. Each development seat
is, last I knew, about $5k (USD's) and then there is a per seat
distribution cost ($100?). You can read the spec sheet at MKS's
site for what's in their offering. The developer seat does come
with the Xserver (again this is from memory), but if you use X11
you need to get an Xserver per end-user seat separately. It's an
emulation system that sits on-top-of Win32 similar to Cygwin or
the (now defunct) U/Win. So the weakness of this for speed and
behavior exists (fork() for example is a lot slower). It doesn't
use any of the SFU structure.
SFU (which includes Interix, username mapping, NIS management and
NFS Server+client) is free; it's a download. Your end users need to
have SFU/Interix installed as well, but that doesn't cost anything.
If you want to redistribute SFU you need to be an ISV with Microsoft.
But again, being an SFU ISV doesn't cost anything. The NFS is a
device driver so that works fairly well for speed. Interix is a peer
subsystem to the Win32 subsystem. So speed is very good for things
like fork(). If there are additional libraries or utilities that
you need you can get there here at /Tools (or ask for the ones
that aren't at /Tools yet). There are ISV's who have developed
applications on Interix that use the /Tools installer and packages
here for their end customers (no charge). It doesn't come with an
Xserver, but there are several options available (Exceed, Xwin32,
Xming, et al.) that vary in price, options and performance. No
mixing of Win32 code with Interix until the Interix SUA/5.2 release
with W2K3/R2 in December/'05.
With W2K3/R2 Interix/SUA will be distributed as part of the MS
Windows OS. So for Longhorn (Vista) this holds true too. Into the
future releases of Windows OS this will continue. So over time
every Windows Pro and Server version will have it "just there"
which I think is a big influence for people with long term plans.
Stability? I'd say both are stable.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CoLinux is a better interix? - Jul. 28, '05, 3:22:44 PM
|
|
|
jsnively
Posts: 21
Joined: Dec. 7, '03,
From: Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline
|
For what it's worth, the research/open-source version of UWIN is still very much alive (see http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/uwin/uwin.html ).
Interix was a better fit for our particular application, by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CoLinux is a better interix? - Jul. 29, '05, 10:40:28 AM
|
|
|
markfunk
Posts: 670
Joined: Mar. 31, '03,
Status: offline
|
quote:
What is the advantages / disadvantages of using interix vs MKS toolkit?
It depends. On what you want to do. Each has their own adv and disadv.
Mostly it comes down to what UNIX features you really need and which ones
you can live without and what type of interoperability you want with Win32
and other Win32 applications.
quote:
Does MKS toolkit utilize Microsoft's UNIX services infrastructure?
It depends on what _you_ mean by UNIX services infrastructure.
There's lots of stuff in Windows that could be classified as
UNIX infrastructure. There is the Interix subsystems. There are
various UNIX functions in Win32 subsystem. There is several UNIX
components (like NFS) in SFU.
quote:
Which is a more stable environment to have has a development environment for unix code compiled for Windows?
It depends. What development environment are you looking for ?
C, C++, Fortran ? Command line development or GUI development ?
Are you looking to re-compile all your UNIX source code on Windows
with no dependancy on Windows functionality ?
Or are you looking to compile your UNIX code and also enhance
the functionality by integrating with Win32/Windows somehow ?
Is your existing UNIX development gcc/gmake based ?
Each has its own adv/disav depending on your individual requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CoLinux is a better interix? - Jul. 30, '05, 7:40:44 AM
|
|
|
ivandn
Posts: 4
Joined: Jul. 28, '05,
Status: offline
|
Essentially which is more stable for compiling code that primarily works on UNIX/GCC and making it accessible from within Windows?
I gather from my initial research that Using a Microsoft supported UNIX subsystem to run GCC compiled code (interix), is more stable than taking said UNIX/GCC code and using a 3rd party wrapper to compile said code to work with the Win32 subsystem.
It also sounds like with the new release of Windows you guys are talking about, it will be easier for a Win32 app to be a dumb wrapper around our solid UNIX/GCC code running within the UNIX subsystem.
Do you guys agree or I am completely offbase here?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CoLinux is a better interix? - Jul. 30, '05, 5:27:43 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3714
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: online
|
> Do you guys agree or I am completely offbase here?
I don't think that you are offbase. 
I can see/hear the others make their arguments.
Nothing is ever "perfect-perfect" with any computer code.
You can have a Win32 program being a "wrapper" to invoke an Interix program today.
Win32 and Interix programs can communicate with pipes, sockets, shared memory, files, etc.
The future Interix (version 5.2, aka SUA) which will officially release with W2K3/R2
in Dec/Jan will allow Win32 programs to call Interix API's (that's the technical orientation
rather than the descriptive orientation). But it'll mostly be tested/oriented at Unix code
wanting to call out to some Win32 DLL's. Specifically it's been focused at Oracle calls
based on what has been said in chat sessions on the Beta site. So the caveat is that not
all possible combinations and permutations of Win32 and Unix/Interix calls have been tested.
Either way, compiling Unix code for Interix is faster and more stable with the same behavior
characteristics than trying to port to using the Win32 system.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
|
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
Printable Version
