Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

Rebol & Linux

 [1/15] from: philb:upnaway at: 3-Feb-2002 9:31


Hi, I want to test my Rebol scripts on Linux. Dont want to start a flame war .... but can anyone suggest a *simple* Linux installation, one that preferably has partitioning as part of the setup, or even doesnt need partitioning. I was considering RedHat 7.2 .... but this may be overkill for what I want. Cheers Phil

 [2/15] from: andyyork:gte at: 3-Feb-2002 16:04


I have a RedHat/Apache/PHP/REBOL machine up and running. Rebol works fine...just takes a bit of getting used to at first. My first Linux server...appears to be very stable, haven't had much time to work with it lately. ay

 [3/15] from: chrismorency:videotron:ca at: 3-Feb-2002 16:36


Hi, I would strongly suggest Mandrake, which has a GUI installation, offer partitionning, etc... it's very simple to install. Best, Chris

 [4/15] from: tim:johnsons-web at: 3-Feb-2002 12:26


* [philb--upnaway--com] <[philb--upnaway--com]> [020203 12:11]:
> Hi, > I want to test my Rebol scripts on Linux.
<<quoted lines omitted: 6>>
> [rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes.
I've been programming with rebol on linux for a long time. First on RH 6.0 and then on RH 7.2. My /core installation goes into /usr/bin. My /view installation is ~/bin/rebol (I installed that as a user). You don't have a edit a registry, such as is the case in windows. But if you are going to do CGI scripts, I STRONGLY advise that you set a scriptalias. Although linux is my OS of choice, rebol is equally stable on windows, at least in my experience. If you are thinking about developing scripts on Linux that may be imported to windows, then you might want to think about a dual-boot or using a something like win4lin. It's a good idea to verify performance on a different platform... -- Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]> http://www.johnsons-web.com

 [5/15] from: tim:johnsons-web at: 3-Feb-2002 16:17


* Christian Morency <[chrismorency--videotron--ca]> [020203 14:33]:
> Hi, > > I would strongly suggest Mandrake, which has a GUI installation, offer > partitionning, etc... it's very simple to install.
I agree. And pretty much anything that I said about RH goes for Mandrake.
<snip>
-- Tim Johnson <[tim--johnsons-web--com]> http://www.johnsons-web.com

 [6/15] from: chalz:earthlink at: 4-Feb-2002 0:19


Phil: Before we get too far into this, I just want to make sure that you understand that, in most cases, partitioning a drive results in the destruction of ALL contents of the drive. There are a couple tools out there which can partition without destroying contents. Just wanted to make sure you were aware. --Charles
> Hi, > > I want to test my Rebol scripts on Linux. > Dont want to start a flame war .... but can anyone suggest a *simple*
Linux installation, one that preferably has partitioning as part of the setup, or even doesnt need partitioning.

 [7/15] from: chalz:earthlink at: 4-Feb-2002 0:31


.... Since Mandrake is, fundamentally, RedHat+. There are, of course, a billion options out there. Now that we got a CD-RW drive hooked into our broadband box, I'm going to try downloading every one I can which has an ISO and burn it for testing. BeOS, if you're interested, runs within the WIndows file system - no need for a partition, just execute a shortcut on your desktop, and it reboots your system into BeOS 5. QNX RTP 6 works similarly, but there's no /View for QNX, and the RT people seem pretty adamant about NOT having /View for QNX (I believe the reason I was given was until we can be assured it would be commercially viable). Granted, they aren't Linux, but they're Unix variants, which are inherently GUI. (QNX can be booted into console instead of GUI. QNX supports far less hardware than, say, BeOS.) There's also the BSD family - FreeBSD if you want a plain desktop system, I'm told. If you're really aching for Linux, RedHat or Mandrake are probably the best options for you. But they like to be big. I don't know what the state of Slackware is anymore, but that was doing pretty well a couple years ago. Another recommendation from a friend is Debian. *shrugs* But again, unless space/performance are really issues, probably RedHat/Mandrake. Be sure to do some configuring, though, before trying to go server or broadband with it - security holes are quite existant in out-of-the-box RH/Man. --Charles

 [8/15] from: scot:ski2die at: 3-Feb-2002 22:05


Hi, I just did what you want to do a few days ago. I installed Mandrake linux on my laptop and used Partition Magic to create the new partitions. PMagic was nice because it actually had an option for creating a linux partition. When I installed Mandrake Linux there were absolutely no problems. Note that I'm completely a linux newbie, so it's nice to have the GUI of Mandrake. Though you can drop to shell whenever you want. Scot ----- Original Message ----- From: <[philb--upnaway--com]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 5:31 PM Subject: [REBOL] Rebol & Linux
> Hi, > > I want to test my Rebol scripts on Linux. > Dont want to start a flame war .... but can anyone suggest a *simple*
Linux installation, one that preferably has partitioning as part of the setup, or even doesnt need partitioning.

 [9/15] from: petr::krenzelok::trz::cz at: 4-Feb-2002 8:43


Charles wrote:
> .... Since Mandrake is, fundamentally, RedHat+. There are, of course, a > billion options out there. Now that we got a CD-RW drive hooked into our
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> adamant about NOT having /View for QNX (I believe the reason I was given was > "until we can be assured it would be commercially viable).
And that is something I really don't understand. RT has to have possible /Pro sales in mind, or I just don't understand it, as /View itself is free (at least for non-commercial usage) ...
> Granted, they > aren't Linux, but they're Unix variants, which are inherently GUI. (QNX can > be booted into console instead of GUI. QNX supports far less hardware than, > say, BeOS.)
eh? Let's state facts: - QNX supports far more hw than BeOS ( http://qdn.qnx.com/support/hardware/platform/index.html ) - QNX is far more better established in embedded market - BeOS is dead (the future of any free BeOS alternative is uncertain yet ...) -pekr-

 [10/15] from: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 3-Feb-2002 17:11


> I want to test my Rebol scripts on Linux. > Dont want to start a flame war .... but can anyone suggest a *simple*
Linux installation, one that preferably has partitioning as part of the setup, or even doesnt need partitioning.
> I was considering RedHat 7.2 .... but this may be overkill for what I
want. Q1: Do you want to keep an existing OS/Partition for running say Windows? I am no expert, but may be this is helpful to you: RedHat 7.2 installation includes options for partitioning with choice of several tools. You can choose = Automatically partition and REMOVE DATA = Manually partition with disk druid = Manually partition with fdisk[experts only] The automatic partitioning is a reasonable place to start, especialy if you are free to wipe data. After you select it it still allows you see and edit the partitions via clean interface. You can step back and redo befoer comit. The worst that will happen is you might decide to redo your intallatino again a couple of times to get more familiar, tweak things or if you mess it up. This morning it only took me 30 mins to do a fresh install of 7.2. If you don't have any legacy data this is perhaps quickrest way to get real familiar with installation options. Just run throught them over the weekend. If you have only one disk and need to keep an existing OS and files in place for a dual boot, then you need to be more careful. [see below] AS long as you dont have some low level hardware voodoo incompatibility, RedHat 7.2 is a very easy install. RedHat package management is easy. Each step has some basic guide docs on screen next to back/next buttons. You can see a preview right of that what it will be like: http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-7.2-Manual/install-guide/ [text+screenshots] Today I chose GRUB, which is the new default loader instead of traditional LILO. They both work well, but GRUB is supposed to be friendlier for multiple operationng systems and has better features if you do run into trouble or want to change settings during the bootup. If your are installing on laptop you may want to do some reasearch first on Linux Laptop site: I did install Caldera a couple of years ago on an older Win95 laptop for an experiment, precisely because it did not involve any repartitioning. Installed just like a windows program. It was very easy to remove. Then I installed 'System Commander' which is still one the most highty rated tools for booting multiple OS. It has a sister program whihc lets you change partitions pretty much on the fly without damage. I installed Mandrake was easy. The default GUI then was KDE which I think they developed a lot of. RedHat 7.2 has good options for GUIs. At installation you just tick 'em off: Classic Xwindows, X Windows, Gnome, KDE.. Your system can boot directly into one these, or select 'choose login as text'. You can launch the GUI with 'startx' command. If you have space install XWindows and KDE and Gnome and see what you prefer. my impressions.. a. = Suse seems to have really good search docs on line. http://sdb.suse.de/sdb/en/html/key_form.html is helpful if you have a problem with another distro. b. = Debian is very cool but requires deeper learning curve and readiness to juggle with config files. ++ ??? I'd like to learn what you decide on and how it goes. good luck... ./Jason

 [11/15] from: philb:upnaway at: 4-Feb-2002 23:35


Hi Jason, I would have tried this all long ago if I was free to wipe my hard disk. However I have to run Wondoze for my work. As I work from home .... I really cant afford to be without my machine for too long. And I dont want to really have to re-install all my software. I read a bit about fips and didnt feel confident with that. I have a copy of Mandrake which came with a Book for Xmas, I also have a copy of Suse ... but have been looking at RedHat whih is available to buy here relatively cheaply. The decieding factor for me is how easy/safe am I going to be when partionin my hard drive. Cheers Phil === Original Message ===
> I want to test my Rebol scripts on Linux. > Dont want to start a flame war .... but can anyone suggest a *simple*
Linux installation, one that preferably has partitioning as part of the setup, or even doesnt need partitioning.
> I was considering RedHat 7.2 .... but this may be overkill for what I
want. Q1: Do you want to keep an existing OS/Partition for running say Windows? I am no expert, but may be this is helpful to you: RedHat 7.2 installation includes options for partitioning with choice of several tools. You can choose = Automatically partition and REMOVE DATA = Manually partition with disk druid = Manually partition with fdisk[experts only] The automatic partitioning is a reasonable place to start, especialy if you are free to wipe data. After you select it it still allows you see and edit the partitions via clean interface. You can step back and redo befoer comit. The worst that will happen is you might decide to redo your intallatino again a couple of times to get more familiar, tweak things or if you mess it up. This morning it only took me 30 mins to do a fresh install of 7.2. If you don't have any legacy data this is perhaps quickrest way to get real familiar with installation options. Just run throught them over the weekend. If you have only one disk and need to keep an existing OS and files in place for a dual boot, then you need to be more careful. [see below] AS long as you dont have some low level hardware voodoo incompatibility, RedHat 7.2 is a very easy install. RedHat package management is easy. Each step has some basic guide docs on screen next to back/next buttons. You can see a preview right of that what it will be like: http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-7.2-Manual/install-guide/ [text+screenshots] Today I chose GRUB, which is the new default loader instead of traditional LILO. They both work well, but GRUB is supposed to be friendlier for multiple operationng systems and has better features if you do run into trouble or want to change settings during the bootup. If your are installing on laptop you may want to do some reasearch first on Linux Laptop site: I did install Caldera a couple of years ago on an older Win95 laptop for an experiment, precisely because it did not involve any repartitioning. Installed just like a windows program. It was very easy to remove. Then I installed 'System Commander' which is still one the most highty rated tools for booting multiple OS. It has a sister program whihc lets you change partitions pretty much on the fly without damage. I installed Mandrake was easy. The default GUI then was KDE which I think they developed a lot of. RedHat 7.2 has good options for GUIs. At installation you just tick 'em off: Classic Xwindows, X Windows, Gnome, KDE.. Your system can boot directly into one these, or select 'choose login as text'. You can launch the GUI with 'startx' command. If you have space install XWindows and KDE and Gnome and see what you prefer. my impressions.. a. = Suse seems to have really good search docs on line. http://sdb.suse.de/sdb/en/html/key_form.html is helpful if you have a problem with another distro. b. = Debian is very cool but requires deeper learning curve and readiness to juggle with config files. ++ ??? I'd like to learn what you decide on and how it goes. good luck... ../Jason

 [12/15] from: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 4-Feb-2002 12:06


Hi Phil Gotta run now. Will offer some other suggestions later. But I highly recommend you invest in copy of System Commander whatever you do after... http://www.v-com.com/product/sc7_ind.html ./Jason ----- Original Message ----- From: <[philb--upnaway--com]> To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:35 AM Subject: [REBOL] Re: Rebol & Linux
> Hi Jason, > > I would have tried this all long ago if I was free to wipe my hard disk. > However I have to run Wondoze for my work. > As I work from home .... I really cant afford to be without my machine for
too long.
> And I dont want to really have to re-install all my software. > > I read a bit about fips and didnt feel confident with that. > > I have a copy of Mandrake which came with a Book for Xmas, I also have a
copy of Suse ... but have been looking at RedHat whih is available to buy here relatively cheaply.

 [13/15] from: brett:codeconscious at: 5-Feb-2002 18:45


Hi Phil,
> As I work from home .... I really cant afford to be without my machine for
too long.
> And I dont want to really have to re-install all my software.
I suggest you invest in another machine - second hand perhaps. This strategy takes all the risk out, saves time waiting for re-boots, adds functionality and has a gentle commitment curve. Basically it avoids grey hair. ;-) There is I believe some gotchas too regarding co-existing operating systems. Assignment of interupts and things. Windows likes to play around - or let you play around with them. I don't know how Linux is with them now, but when I last looked it had problems. Or perhaps it was just me... The point is the hard disk is not the only potential point of interface between the two (or more) operating systems - device configuration could be an issue too. Having another machine allows you to become try out your latest Rebol network innovations in a more realistic setting too. :) Regards, Brett.

 [14/15] from: chalz:earthlink at: 4-Feb-2002 23:30


> And that is something I really don't understand. RT has to have possible
/Pro
> sales in mind, or I just don't understand it, as /View itself is free (at
least
> for non-commercial usage) ...
Yeah. Well, I guess they don't anticipate enough /Pro sales to justify stranding people on the QNX project.
> > Granted, they > > aren't Linux, but they're Unix variants, which are inherently GUI. (QNX
can
> > be booted into console instead of GUI. QNX supports far less hardware
than,
> > say, BeOS.) > > eh? Let's state facts: > > - QNX supports far more hw than BeOS ( > http://qdn.qnx.com/support/hardware/platform/index.html ) > - QNX is far more better established in embedded market > - BeOS is dead (the future of any free BeOS alternative is uncertain yet
...) Hmm.. indeed? I mean, I knew that BeOS was no longer supported, but I was always of the impression that BeOS supported more hardware. Every new release of QNX RTP seems to support less and less hardware - yes, that's right. Where RTP itself supported this stack of hardware, 6.0 didn't. Where 6.0 supported all that hardware over there, 6.1 doesn't. It's very frustrating. My father's nvidia TNT (not tnt2) isn't even supported. motherboard-based hardware (video, sound, nic, etc) typically won't work in qnx. *shrugs* I like QNX, don't get me wrong, but they really do seem to have fewer hardware compatibilities with each release. Oh well. Heh, way off-topic. --Charles

 [15/15] from: bwilson:ihpva at: 5-Feb-2002 9:26


NO REBOL CONTENT HERE! SORRY If your machine has NT, Win2000. or XP on it, (or Linux,) you should also consider using 'vmware'. It costs about $300. I use the linux version and it saves me from having to own many systems. I have a RH Linux, Win 98, NT Server, and Win 2000 all concurrently installed. At this moment I am running Win2000 to allow me to use Internet Explorer and a separate copy of Linux so that I can simulate having a second Linux server. I use a P III - 450 with 512 MB of RAM and a 40 GB hd. Speed is acceptable; naturally if I did processor intensive things on all three machines at the same time, it would slow down but usually it is not a problem. I run Redhat as the main OS; I tried out the Windows version of Vmware and it worked, but I prefer Linux. I keep an archive backup of the virtual drive for each OS. When I want to test some new thing that will dump files all over the disk and modify the registry, I use a virtual machine and delete the whole machine when I am done. A virtual machine lives in a subdirectory in about 5 files. Reinstalling a new machine consists of running unzip on the archive.
> There is I believe some gotchas too regarding co-existing operating systems. > Assignment of interupts and things.
As far as dual boot goes, I have used a dual boot laptop for years with no problems. But for daily work dual boot is a nuisance. I find I want some feature (like IE) that is not available unless I boot, use that tool, reboot into Linux... etc... if the laptop was new and had more memory I would put Vmware on it too. If your Win machine is older (less than 450 Mhz and say 256 MB RAM) or running 95/98, I would support the idea of a second machine to run Linux, it runs quite nicely on a machine say PII-233 MHz / 128 MB. You can pick those up pretty cheaply. Our local computer thrift store would have a system for around $100 that would work. The Disclaimer: I don't get money from the VMware people though I did review it once. They sent me a review copy of VMware GSX, but I paid list price for my copy of VMware Workstation. GSX is the server edition. Ask me if you want a review. :-) This is the REBOL list! -- Brian Wilson Santa Rosa, California 707-576-7649

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted