Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2015 July 2

= July 2 =

What Web Browser is this?
My hotel has a web browser I've never seen before. Its logo is a white S within a blue globe circle. Googling "web browser s logo" brings up one site with the logo, called shillvoav.com, but I can't click it because the hotel kiosk forbids me from visiting that site.

Im still at the hotel, so I cant click on a lot of things. What browser si this? 24.173.18.93 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming we both found the same image (a picture of the Earth with a large white S), this is an icon for IronSource's "Spearmint" browser (for Google Android). Tevildo (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Android? How odd. I wonder why a hotel desktop would have an android browser? Thanks! 24.173.18.93 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging by this list, SlimBrowser might be what you're looking at - it runs under Windows and appears able to be locked down pretty tight. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The Spearmint logo is _very_ similar (the main difference being that the "S" is white rather than cream, and the map is dark blue rather than white).  We may have uncovered nefariousness.  I agree that SlimBrowser is a more likely candidate for the OP's hotel system. Tevildo (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What are the limitations of cygwin?
If you use the linux command line specially for tools like grep, sed, awk and similar other, mainly for the one-liners, what are the limitations of windows + cygwin comparing to a full-linux installation? --Yppieyei (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cygwin is a windows program. It is NOT a linux program. The underlining OS is windows. 220.239.43.253 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The question is not whether they are different, but whether they behave differently.


 * I use cygwin on my W7 box at work and I wouldn't be without it. I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I find the W7 search clumsy in syntax but more importantly unreliable, so I use grep in cygwin, which never fails. I also use the built in Perl and Perl/TK - we can't afford ActivePerl and my previous experience with Strawberry Perl hasn't been the best. Finally as a 25+ year Vi user, old habits die hard and this what I use for web development (my real job). --TrogWoolley (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So, there is nothing you could do in Vi under Linux, but cannot do it in Vi using cygwin? There are not surprises, no packages that cannot be installed, or which last version cannot be installed, things that don't work, or things that only work with some hack? --Yppieyei (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It depends on your definition of "things that don't work". For example, if a program running on Linux work just fine with POSIX-style file permissions on an Ext2 partition but fails with Windows-style file permissions on an NTFS partition, is that a "thing that doesn't work"? Most people would say no. How about the same program ported to Windows having the same limitations? Most people would call that a "thing that doesn't work". Cygwin actually does a lot better than that -- see https://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/ntsec.html and https://www.cygwin.com/faq.html -- but some things just don't map properly and need workarounds. Try creating files named com1, lpt1, or aux (no file extension) in Windows. Now try it in Linux. Is that a "thing that doesn't work"?


 * Cygwin is pretty good at handling these sort of things, but it isn't perfect. I have had a couple of people recommend this page: [ http://www.howtogeek.com/68511/how-to-improve-your-cygwin-experience-with-mintty/ ] but have not tried it myself. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly 'vi' works identically to the same version running under Linux. There are many packages that can't be installed though.  If, for example, you try to run 'GIMP' under Cygwin, it's a bunch of no-fun...so you install the Windows version and be happy.  SteveBaker (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the obvious stuff works identically to Linux - but if you stray into systems stuff (networking, user management, windowing) - then the cracks become obvious. File permissions are also a bit odd - but for a single user on the system, it's mostly OK.  For 99% of basic command-line stuff, it feels identical to Linux.  Most of the issues I have in using it are at the boundaries between the Cygwin world and Windows...so, for example, the CR/LF line endings in Windows are not maintained by Cygwin, and Window's weird directory links aren't always there.
 * On the whole though - as a Linux guy - Cygwin gives me a way to work reasonably comfortably in a Windows world and it's the very first thing I install on a new Windows computer. I can't imagine not having it.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)