Linux-Misc Digest #584, Volume #25 Sun, 27 Aug 00 13:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2) (Robert Morelli)
Re: [Q] How to compile kernel in Debian / Storm (Tom Pfeifer)
Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2) (Robert Morelli)
Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2) (ray)
Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2) (Rod Smith)
Re: W2K and Linux ("J.T. Wenting")
Re: NFS or SAMBA with DHCP Server (SDI \"Semiconductor Instruments\")
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Mark Preston)
Re: Headless X86 Linux system (fred smith)
Re: Memory Error? (fred smith)
Linux <-> Older Macs, how? (Neil Cherry)
Re: Headless X86 Linux system (mst)
Re: Borland C++ for Linux (Kyle Parfrey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 09:23:17 -0400
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2)
This thread looked like it might be heading for flames. I
specifically stated that I didn't want flames. I'm happy
to flame in a newsgroup intended for it, but not here.
Thanks
------------------------------
From: Tom Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: [Q] How to compile kernel in Debian / Storm
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:22:29 GMT
Below is the web page the the Debian potato kernel-package, which
provides an automated way to compile a kernel. I run Debian, not Storm,
so I don't know for sure if this package will be completely compatible
with Storm Linux, although it should be:
http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/misc/kernel-package.html
In any case, you will also have to install the Linux kernel source
tree. That is what goes in /usr/src/linux.
I just took a look on Storm's ftp site (ftp.stormix.com) in the "hail"
directory, and there are two kernel-source packages there. One looks
like the full kernel, while the other has "ide" in the package name. You
can see them here:
ftp://ftp.stormix.com/storm/dists/hail/main/binary-i386/devel/
Since you are running "hail", I would assume that these packages would
also be on your hail CD. Looks like the preferred way to install
packages in Storm Linux is by using the Storm Package Manager. That
should automatically handle all the package dependencies for you.
You should be able to configure it to install packages from your CD, or
directly from the Storm (or Debian) ftp site. By the way, here's the
Storm web page for their package manager:
http://www.stormix.com/products/hail/starter/stormpkg_html
In addition to the kernel source, you will need several other packages
to actually compile a kernel, including the gcc compiler, the make
utility, and the bin86 package. That web page I gave you for the
kernel-package package, gives you a run down on what's needed,
recommended, and suggested.
Tom
Jerome Mrozak wrote:
>
> I'd like to try using Storm Linux on my laptop, a Debian-derived
> distro. One problem I'm having is that apmd isn't supported in the
> "potato" kernel. I'm having trouble finding the packages to compile it.
>
> For example, the Debian recommened packages for compiling is the combo
> of "make-kpkg" and "kernel-package". I can't seem to find them on my
> Stormix hail ISO, and wasn't able to coerce the SPS system to find them
> on my Debian potato ISO. (I simply mounted the potato disk and told SPS
> to Find "kernel". It appeared to use a pre-loaded list of packages,
> rather than investigate my newly-loaded CD.)
>
> I also tried to find the files for "make menuconfig", "make xconfig" and
> "make config", but with no success (most advice said to look in
> /usr/src/linux, which didn't exist in my Stormix "install everything"
> installation).
>
> So how can I add apmd support?
>
> TIA,
> Jerome.
> --
> Jerome Mrozak "Never buy a dog and bark for yourself"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] --"Slippery" Jim DiGriz
> (the Stainless Steel Rat)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 09:38:35 -0400
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2)
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:16:14 -0400, Robert Morelli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >1. I currently have a 300 mb partition devoted exclusively to the OS/2
> > system (together with the Java JDK). I keep all my applications and
> > data on a separate partition.
>
> >> a. how much disk space is needed for the base system
>
> Depends on distribution and what you install. Figure 125 MB for a
> "minimum" install, 250 MB for a "workstation" install with a good
> selection of gadets, 1GB or more for a "full" with StarOffice and all
> the development tools and enough geegaws and gadgets that you'll still
> be finding them in a year.
By base system, I mean only the core of the system. This includes the kernel
and basic functionality. I include the JDK because I consider Java basic according
to how I work. (You're free to disagree, but please go to comp.lang.java.advocacy
to do so.) I exclude StarOffice, geegaws, gadgets and such. The base system
shouldn't grow much over time.
I asked this because I have two 400 MB hard drives I'm thinking of devoting
exclusively to the base system on two PCs, but before I bother installing them
I'd like to know if that's going to be enough space.
<snip>
Thanks for your other advice.
------------------------------
From: ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:51:30 GMT
Brian Goodyear wrote:
> Robert Morelli wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess I'd like to know 2 things. a) OS/2 has very good multitasking.
>I've heard claims
> > to the same effect about Linux, but my personal experience so far doesn't
>confirm them.
> > Do I need to take special care to avoid taxing Linux's multitasking
>abilities? Will this
> > situation improve with 2.4? (Is anyone here honest enough to address this
>question without
> > flames?)
>
> I was an OS/2 user for about 6 years mostly because of it's stability
> compared to Windows but when I switched to Linux in February I quickly
> discovered that it was much stabler. I was using Object Desktop which
> some say caused stability problems with OS/2 but I had reboot type
> lockups several times a week if I did anything other than have 3 or 4
> programs running. Netscape seemed to be the culprit at times also.
>
> Netscape also freezes up at times in Linux but I can always just kill it
> in a way that Process Commander and the like never were able to. It is
> extremely rare that I have to reboot to clear up the machine and this
> has happened twice in 6 months in both cases when I was testing beta
> software.
>
> I even have a program called Win4Lin which enables me to safely and
> stably run any Windows program that I need, and it runs in a window on
> the Linux desktop. This to me is the acid test.
>
> Perhaps your installation is lacking something. I strongly reccommend
> that you get an experienced Linux user to do the installation and run
> you through the basics as it is quite different than OS/2. I for
> example began installing programs in places that I now regret.
>
> Brian
Also, in the new 2.4.X kernels, we now have LVM, which the big boy's (AIX,
HP/UX) have had for
years. I have been running it since 2.4.0-test2 and it is delightfully well written.
This allows on
the fly resizing of "disk drives", which are merely logical drives, in any number you
like. Thus ends
the need to guess about the size that a mount point may someday need to be, or even
where it may need
to be.
--
Ray R. Jones
Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
HTTP://gordo.penguinpowered.com
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith)
Subject: Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 15:53:25 GMT
[Posted and mailed]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
First, your postings have lines in excess of 100 characters, which
causes weird wrapping effects on 80-column displays. You might want to
cut it down to 72 columns or so in the future.
> Note: I've decided to use GNOME as my desktop environment. No flames please. I'll
> entertain suggestions otherwise if there is a compelling technical reason to do so
>in the
> context of the questions below but again, please no flames.
You've not said *WHY* you want to use GNOME, but given your gripes about
memory usage, I have to wonder if it's an appropriate choice. You might
want to look into something lighter-weight, like IceWM
(http://icewm.sourceforge.net/) in conjunction with DFM (supposedly
http://dfm.linuxbox.com, but it doesn't seem to be working; there are
links to packages at http://rufus.w3.org/linux/RPM/). This combination
won't be as flashy as GNOME, but it'll be much less memory-hungry, and
may even be more familiar to you as an OS/2 user, since DFM was partly
modelled after the WPS (although it's far less flexible).
> 1. I currently have a 300 mb partition devoted exclusively to the OS/2 system
>(together with
> the Java JDK). I keep all my applications and data on a separate partition. For
>Linux,
> a. how much disk space is needed for the base system
That varies a lot. I'd recommend devoting at least 1GB to it, if you
intend to use Mandrake. Many distributions install a lot of "fluff,"
though. If you use a more minimalist distribution, like Debian, you can
get by with less space.
> b. what is the most reasonable way to separate applications and data from the
>base OS. For instance,
> would it make sense to put /home and /usr on their own partition as a way
>to acheive that?
There's no easy way to separate applications from the core OS (although
you can separate many commercial applications by creating a separate
/opt partitions, and applications you build locally by creating a
separate /usr/local partition). Using a separate /home partition is the
way to separate user files from system files. For newbies, I generally
recommend three or four partitions: root (/), /home, swap, and possibly
/boot (if the disk is bigger than 8GB and you want to put most Linux
stuff above the 1024-cylinder limit; be sure /boot is below that level
[this is no longer necessary with the latest versions of LILO, but most
distributions still ship with older versions of LILO]).
> 2. Is it feasible to use an HPFS partition for data and/or Linux applications
>during a transition
> period? What sorts of performance and reliability issues would I have to deal
>with?
In the 2.2.x kernels, HPFS support is read-only. You use HPFS as a truly
shared partition, you'll need to patch it for read/write support or use
a 2.4.x kernel (still at 2.4.0-test6, the last I checked). I can't say
how reliable the read/write HPFS support is. I've used it briefly, but
not enough to say how reliable it is. HPFS read/write support includes
the ability to store Linux ownership and permissions in HPFS EAs, so
it's a better choice for this task than would be FAT.
> Would that complicate backing up?
Aside from storing Unix-style permissions in EAs, Linux's HPFS support
doesn't handle EAs, so if you use Linux tools, you'll lose the EAs. This
is certainly bad for the boot partition, and is also bad (but less so)
for programs. I'd use OS/2 tools for backing up the HPFS partitions
(they should handle the EA-encapsulated Linux permissions) and Linux
tools for ext2fs partitions.
> 3. Is there a transparent way of dealing with the text file end-of-line difference
>between OS/2
> (which is like Windows) and Linux (which is like UNIX)? I will probably be
>using XEmacs as
> my text editor.
I don't know offhand if XEmacs handles this transparently by default,
but it can probably be configured to do so. If not, you can use the
unix2dos and dos2unix utilities to do the trick. There are also HPFS
(and FAT) mount options that'll do the translation automatically, but
they can wreak havoc with binary files that they mistakenly classify as
text, so in most cases it's not worth using these options.
> 4. Is there a Linux equivalent to extended attributes.
No.
> 5. The FM/2 file manager I use under OS/2 seems to be more customizable and more
>powerful
> in some ways than anything I've ever seen under Linux (or any other OS). For
>instance, you
> can create custom toolbars with custom command bindings and you can switch
>between multiple
> toolbars while it's running. The default file manager that comes with GNOME
>seems to be a far
> cry from FM/2. Perhaps I'm wrong on this point, or perhaps there's something
>else available
> out there. Advice appreciated.
I never used FM/2 very extensively, so I can't point you to specific
programs. Many people like Midnight Commander (mc). There are certainly
plenty of alternatives. You should probably just try a few of them and
decide for yourself what you like.
> 6. OS/2 runs fine on an old P90 laptop with 40 MB of ram. I've tried running Linux
>on such a
> machine but Linux (running GNOME) seems to require more horsepower. I won't
>give up GNOME.
> Are there optimizations that would make this machine usable? I also have a
>P166 with 64 MB
> of ram. Even that seems strained by Linux with GNOME. Same question for this
>machine.
This is a GNOME issue, not a Linux issue.
> 8. At this time I reluctantly plan to use XEmacs as my text editor. I am reluctant
>because of
> the conflict (which I don't quite understand) with the FSF, and also because
>of the
> crudeness of the user interface of XEmacs. FSF Emacs seems to be out of the
>question right
> now because of its antideluvian user interface. Under OS/2, I use the editor
>(EPM) that
> ships with OS/2. EPM combines the programmability of Emacs with a decent GUI
>interface.
> For instance, can I easily customize the XEmacs toolbar? (With EPM I can do
>neat things
> like have an icon with my daughter's face that calls up a diary I keep of
>her.) I'd love to
> find an editor with the following characteristics:
> a. GPL or equivalent license
> b. decent modern GUI (preferably GNOME aware)
> c. Emacs keybindings
> d. powerful programmability
> e. available packages to compiling TeX
> f. available packages to support programming in common languages like Java
>and perl
You might look into Nedit
(http://www.fnal.gov/fermitools/abstracts/nedit/abstract.html). It's not
as powerful as XEmacs, and I can't promise it does all you want, but it
may do so.
> 9. To my surprise, I've had severe stability problems in the past running
>Linux-Mandrake 6.0 and
> 6.1. I was flamed in another group for even inquiring about this problem.
>Typically I can
> only boot a few times before the system actually stops even booting. I've had
>better
> stability with Caldera OpenLinux -- I've had OpenLinux partitions on two
>computers that
> still boot even after occasional use for a period of several months. Is
>anyone aware of a
> specific problem with Linux-Mandrake (possibly related to having OS/2 on the
>machine)?
>From your description, I suspect you either have flaky hardware or are
doing something very wrong, like powering off without issuing an
appropriate shutdown command. Certainly Linux is quite solid for me, and
doesn't mysteriously stop booting or crash.
> 10. I've also had application level stability problems.
Ditto my comment to #9.
--
Rod Smith, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux & multi-OS configuration
------------------------------
From: "J.T. Wenting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K and Linux
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:01:48 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8o9j4d$l8c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So you mean that you were ignorant until a few months ago ?
>
> I know alot of people that are very good technicaly but have
> been focused on Windows. I wouldn't say that they are ignorant
> becasue they have been focused on the Windows platform, after
> all that is what people have been paid to know/support.
> Companies have trained the staff on the windows enviroment
> and to do it all over again is costly.
>
And do not forget that a lot of money is to be made creating software for
Windows, far more than creating for Linux or any other OS (except maybe
mainframes, and I would not want one of those at home).
If only for that, I need Windows (and for the far greater number of
applications all round, of course).
> You can't say that Linux is as easy as Windows and most people
> just want to use the tools that are presented and don't give
> a sh-t was underneeth.
> Right or wrong that is how it is.
>
As long as Windows (and most of the tools to be had for it) are as easy (if
not easier) to use than their counterparts (if existent) on linux, Windows
will remain dominant in the mainstream. Most users don't care about whether
their computer can run 10 hours or 10 years without booting, the electricity
bill forces them to shut it down after 3 hours or so anyway.
> I'm not pro Windows, I like Linux.
> There is alot of OS that are better than Windows, e.g. OS/2 is
> in many ways superior to Windows but the lack of applications
> has more or less killed it (last I checked).
> As a Server OS I find Linux excellent, as a Client....well I
> would say it depends on the knowledge of the users and the
> applications that is to be used.
>
Try OS/2 on the server. It is quite good (though there is indeed a lack of
software for it). OS/2 was killed by lack of hardware support most of all.
IBM left users in the cold unless they were using IBM hardware for far too
long (I can know, I used OS/2 myself up to last year at work, when we
switched because IBM stopped supporting even their own stuff).
> I would recommend people to try Linux but to call people ignorant
> for not want or can try Linux is a bit too much, I think.
>
I would not recommend linux for people who have no knowledge of what is
happening under the hood, and no inclination to find out. Without that
knowledge, successfully running a linux box becomes far harder (unless you
use a distro that is basically Windows in user-experience, with the same
shortcomings in not being tuned to the system hardware, but just the biggest
common denominator).
------------------------------
From: SDI \"Semiconductor Instruments\" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NFS or SAMBA with DHCP Server
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:42:01 +0200
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============8FBE5D2ADCC703274FF080D1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SDI \"Semiconductor Instruments\" wrote:
> Dear Everyone,
>
> I have sucessfully set up a DHCP server between Liux systems with the
> eventual intention of also networking a windoze system with samba and a
> mac all on the same network.
> I chose DHCP because I found a really good book by coriolis (Setting up
> a Linux Intranet Srver , www.coriolis.com) which explains how to do
> this.
> The only problem is that this wonderful book doesn't explain how you
> should interface 2 systems together running linux.
>
> I understand I have 2 possibilities:
> 1. Use NFS
> 2. Use smbfs, seeing as I already have to set up samba to interface the
> mac and the windows system on the network anyway.
>
> I have 2 questions:-
>
> 1. Should I use NFS to communicate between linux systems ?
> If so, how do I install NFS on my redhat 6.1 linux box and set it up as
> a client under dhcp ?
>
> 2. Is it possible to use samba to run file transfers between my linux
> boxes ?
> Is this preferrable in terms of security considerations to running NFS ?
>
> Also , How do I install samba on a linux 6.1 redhat system as a client
> under a dhcp protocol ?
Okay , thanks for all the help , everyone.
I decided to use SAMBA and have now discovered you can run a client program
which you can get as an RPM. I guess it didn't work too good in the past,
because it has been heavily modified in the latest release, 2.07.
Anyway, you can mount a file system in a similar way to nfs by using the
command smbmount.
I have now nearly achieved a connection between my 2 filesystems without
totally compromising network security , but I am stuck with the following
error message when I try to log in from the client:-
tree connect failed: ERRSRV - ERRinvnetname (Invalid network name in tree
connect.)
watch this space for more developments !!
I am now going to try installing the same version of samba on both systems-
I'm sure that'll help !
==============8FBE5D2ADCC703274FF080D1
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="showe.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for SDI "Semiconductor Instruments"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="showe.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Howe;Stephen
tel;pager:none
tel;cell:Italy(39) 335 710 7756
tel;fax:Italy(39) 081 575 5835
tel;home:Italy(39) 081 598 3133
tel;work:Italy(39) 081 598 3133
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:SDI (Tel: Italy (39) 081 598 3133 Fax:Italy(39)081 575 5835)
adr:;;Via F. Russo,19;NAPOLI;;80123;ITALY
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Principal
x-mozilla-cpt:;32480
fn:Stephen Howe
end:vcard
==============8FBE5D2ADCC703274FF080D1==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Preston)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:16:20 GMT
For heaven's sake, people!!
If there is ground for a discussion here - and it looks like there may
well be - how about we start with something clearly defined and
discuss that instead of everyone climbing on their own hobby horses
and yelling at each other.
--
--
Mark A. Preston, The Magpie's Nest, Lancashire, UK
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website : www.mpreston.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
From: fred smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Headless X86 Linux system
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:43:40 GMT
Prasanth A. Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: fred smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<snip>
:> The question came up whether it was necessary to include a monitor and
:> keyboard, or if it could be run "headless".
:>
:> As far as I know, you need (or at least ought to have) a monitor/video
:> card/keyboard for the boot process if for no other reason than to allow
:> you to view the POST and any BIOS errors that may occur.
: <snip>
: I've done this with no problems. You just disable the keyboard
: warnings in the bios setup. To access the box, you connect through the
: network via telnet or you can configure the kernel to use the serial
: port instead by putting something like 'console=tty0,9600n8' in the
: lilo options. In my case, I just use the network and then hacked up
: the boot scripts to put a unique beep tone through the speaker if
: there are some problems during bootup.
Would you be willing to share the hacked up portions of your boot scripts?
or at least pass along some implementation details so I won't need to
totally re-invent the wheel?
Thanks!
Fred
--
---- Fred Smith -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------
I can do all things through Christ
who strengthens me.
============================== Philippians 4:13 ===============================
------------------------------
From: fred smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Memory Error?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:52:40 GMT
zero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Whenever I start Linux, after choosing it over Windows when I boot up (I
: run both OS's on the same hard drive), it, in time, gives me an error
: message saying something about the RAM or such, and stating that
: it's "dazed and confused, but trying to continue" (or something). What's
: up with that? Also, how do you fix the "Kernel panic" error? All advice
: is welcome!
A "kernel panic" occurs when the poor thing is SO "dazed and confused"
that it can't carry on any longer. It drops its load on the floor and
keels over.
I'll guess you may have defective RAM. I'll further suggest that you
run (don't walk) over to http://reality.sgi.com/cbrady/memtest86 and
download the latest memtest86 distribution, make a floppy containing it
("make install-bin"), boot it up and let it run for a few hours. It'll
beat the heck outta your RAM and seems to do a pretty good job of finding
flakiness if any exists.
Fred
: --
: Posted via CNET Help.com
: http://www.help.com/
--
---- Fred Smith -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
============================== Matthew 7:21 (niv) =============================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cherry)
Subject: Linux <-> Older Macs, how?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:30:40 GMT
I'm very confused about how to get my Mac SE & SE/30 to communicate
with my Linux server. I have an Farallon ethernet card in each,
verified that the SE/30 has it's card working (the SE has software
problems). Now I want to use the Linux box as an Appletalk server. I
do not have the TCP/IP software for the Mac (system 7.0.1). Any
pointers? The Linux options are confusing me.
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.home.net/ncherry (Text only)
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/lightsey/52 (Graphics)
http://linuxha.sourceforge.net/ (SourceForge)
------------------------------
From: mst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Headless X86 Linux system
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 12:26:07 -0400
fred smith wrote:
>
> My employer is preparing to ship a turnkey Linux system complete with
> one of our applications.
>
> The question came up whether it was necessary to include a monitor and
> keyboard, or if it could be run "headless".
>
> As far as I know, you need (or at least ought to have) a monitor/video
> card/keyboard for the boot process if for no other reason than to allow
> you to view the POST and any BIOS errors that may occur.
>
> Does anyone have any experience with headless X86 Linux boxes, or
> can someone point me to HOWTOs or other docs on the subject?
>
> Thanks!
>
If your hardware allows it (i.e. if it boots without having a keyboard
and video card), then Linux won't care. I had to setup a
headless/kbd-less box once, and the only problem I had was to find a
motherboard that will boot without them (I eventually ended up with a
Octek Hippo DCA2, probably the best 486 motherboard ever built, complete
with MrBios BIOS). I then put in all the hardware I needed, as well as a
temporary vidcard and keyboard; setup Linux as usual, configured
networking, attached to network and made sure it worked, then stripped
out the vidcard and keyboard. That was all. Works perfectly, 2 years
next month.
MST
------------------------------
From: Kyle Parfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Borland C++ for Linux
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:37:04 GMT
If you're using a rpm based system (red hat, mandrake, SuSe etc.) try
rpmfind.net . I haven't tried tuxsearch.com , and there is always
ftpsearch.lycos.com .
Kyle
Stuart Mika Hankel wrote:
> Any direction to go to? I don't know where to start searching for Linux
> software. Do you know of a special ftp or something similar?
>
> Mr. Ed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Stuart Mika Hankel wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello. Does anyone know of a version for Linux for development in C? I
> mean
> > > an environment for debugging, like Borland C++ for DOS.
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Stuart
> > >
> > You can try the GNU C++ compiler and the UPS debugger.
> > There is also the Code Crusader editor that has an integrated debugger
> add-on.
> > They're all free off the Web.
> >
> > Mr. Ed
> >
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
