Don't get me wrong, andLinux is great technology, lighter than a VM, and the right tool if you're looking for maximum Linux compatibility. But claiming that it's more seamlessly integrated into Windows than either Cygwin or SFU is a nonsense.
Good points about avoiding fork where possible. spawn() is another way to do that.
- The latest version is available for all Windows (>=NT) variants, not just Enterprise and Ultimate.
- It's more compatible with GNU/Linux extensions (since SFU is not aimed at that).
- It's open source with open development, short release cycle, and responsive mailing list.
- Package system. (It's no apt-get, but it does its job, including dependency resolution and updates.)
- Bigger, more recent choice of packages. For example gcc, is 4.3 vs. SFU's 3.3.
- Bash and zsh.
- A usable default shell configuration. The arrow keys don't even work correctly in SFU's default ksh setup. (It's as if MS deliberately try to scare people off Unix.)
- A choice of terminals to replace the awful Windows console.
Also, what do you base your claim of SFU's better Windows integration on? Since Cygwin's based on the Windows API rather than being confined to its own subsystem, it can offer features like
Finally, Cygwin 1.7 does also support case sensitivity on NFS and on NTFS volumes that have that feature enabled.
1 Mole = 25 Cagey Bees