Closed micolous closed 8 years ago
Cygwin is more difficult to use, but there's still some reasons to use it. See #37. I think that goes nicely with your Windows instructions. I think moving the common client platforms (OS X, Windows, Chrome, Android) to the top of the install instructions makes some sense, but that de-emphasizes Linux's status as the first-class platform. Opinions?
(I don't have a strong opinion here on where to put Linux vs. the other ones.)
The additions in #37 look good to me. I knew there was something to it, it's just been a long while since I ran the Cygwin version.
As for rearranging, while I see your point about emphasising platforms without package managers or without packages called "mosh" (though arguably Chrome's is "discoverable"), I am concerned about emphasising platforms without support for both the client and the server.
Ta!
I've added some notes on using
mosh
on Windows, as there is a common misconception that mosh does not work at all on Windows, and this creates a lot of noise (see mobile-shell/mosh#293). Instead, these users should be directed to the Chrome version of mosh, because this is the easiest to install.I have noted that pointing to the Chrome version of mosh for Windows users is intentional.
If I recall correctly, the Cygwin version had some strange terminal limitations.
In the process I noticed some of the rows for download links had overflowed, and I took the opportunity to reorder them into logical groups.