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