Putty runs circles around the cmd.exe terminal you'd have to suffer with, going that route.
Cygwin has changed a lot since you last looked at it. Cygwin's default terminal is now mintty.exe, which is a project based off of Putty's terminal.
I have used Cygwin daily at work and at home for ten years and have almost never seen the issues you are talking about. I'm sure they are real and affect people who do things differently than me. I don't typically download third party applications that depend on the Cygwin DLL. I use the complete official Cygwin package repository or (very rarely) compile from source. I use Eclipse, Java, ant, Cygwin, and am about as happy as I can be with my environment (I'd be happier writing Perl, but that's another story). I use Cygwin openssh every day and it works great.
ROTFLMAO. I think it is both hilarious and sad when people talk about how they "put" someone in office as if the choice was an open one. That ignores the fact that your choices were already dwindled down to almost nothing up front. When you vote for a politician these days you pretty much have a choice of which half of the shit sandwich you want. I don't really call that freedom of choice myself. I can think of 100 people off the top of my head that would make a better president than Obama and Bush, but they were never an option.
Moreover, it's even less of a choice for those who don't believe there should be a President at all. The American government system can only grow bigger, never smaller, so those who believe it has gotten too large are out of luck. To those people even if you have a good candidate (not that that would ever happen) you're just running a good candidate for a bad office.
+1 As an old Perl programmer, I have to appreciate any response that mentions the phrase "XY problem."
Forget morphine - could I just get a way to simply, legally obtain sudafed without rigamarole at the pharmacy?
How about we quit making up rights?
You know, we're almost getting into "no true Scotsman" here. There are atheists who want religion to die out by persecution (the "make them second class citizens" ideas seem to be very popular here on Slashdot), and there are atheists who are like you are describing, who only want to persuade people. I have no idea what the relative proportions are between the two groups.
By the same token, there are Christians who want to infringe the liberty of atheists, and there are Christians who find that completely abhorrent.
To complicate the issue further there are all kinds of disagreements about what actually constitutes persecution and aggression. The issue of educating children is a prime example - some people feel that that responsibility lies primarily with the parents, and some feel the children are more the property of the state/society. This is on both sides of the argument - many want to use the schools to promote religion, and many want to use the schools to demote religion and counteract religious instruction from the parents.
There are lots of other examples, too. Many Christians are utterly totally blind to the fact that laws against consensual sexual behavior or against alcohol are a complete violation of liberty. I could go on and on.
I wish we'd all agree on the leave each other alone / everyone change their minds by respectful voluntary persuasion position. But that's probably a pipe dream.
I didn't say a single thing about being self-sustaining. Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I said.
And in our society, we elect those leaders. In some societies, people obtain leadership through brute force. It's not pretty.
Brute force is wrong even when you are elected.
And the great thing about politics is that politicians, the people you and me vote for (or don't vote for) are ultimately elected by people. And those people have opinions. And those opinions can and do change. And when you share an unpopular opinion it can make you unpopular. Most politicians try not to share their unpopular opinions, at least the ones unpopular to their constituents.
Nobody's opinion should ever be forced on another person, no matter how popular their opinion is.
It's not about dominating friends, it's about informing them
Did you vote for 8 years of George W. Bush? Did you have to live under him for 8 years? You were dominated.
Substitute anyone else for George W. if you did vote for him. (I did - my mistake.)
If you vote for a guy, you are appointing a ruler for other human beings. Not just having a respectful conversation where you try to persuade them to willingly follow his leadership.
Does Facebook make it harder for people with different political views to get along?
Politics is about making other people do what you think is right. It's just like forcing your religion on someone except that somehow if there's not a God involved it's considered to be morally acceptable. It's the worst form of blind faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, and it's used to justify tyranny. We replaced hereditary tyrants with taking turns being tyrants, instead of replacing tyranny with freedom.
I'm not talking about people defending themselves from others who would wrong them - there's no problem with that. But politics is more than just appointing someone to run a mutual protection arrangement. When two neighbors have differing political signs up, each of them is hoping that his man will win the election and desires that his neighbor be subjugated to the winner.
Given that politics is all about oppressing your neighbor, it's hard to see how anyone could expect to get along over this.