Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Robert R. Beaver]

Is it posible?
IF so what are the steps to do so?

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Robert Dewar]

"Robert R. Beaver" <beaveroregon@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3CD1FFC5.4050607@qwest.net>...
> Is it posible?
> IF so what are the steps to do so?

You will have to build a GCC cross-compiler. If you don't already know how
to do that, then probably this would be a pretty steep learning curve.
First you need to just study the basic GCC build process and build
GNAT from sources. The Windows target would make this particularly
tricky, since Windows is maximally uncooperative for such tasks. I have
not ever heard of anyone wanting to do a cross with windows as a target
before, so I doubt there is any prior experience here, especially from
FreeBSD *to* Win32.

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Robert R. Beaver]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> "Robert R. Beaver" <beaveroregon@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3CD1FFC5.4050607@qwest.net>...
> 
>>Is it posible?
>>IF so what are the steps to do so?
>>
> 
> You will have to build a GCC cross-compiler. If you don't already know how
> to do that, then probably this would be a pretty steep learning curve.
> First you need to just study the basic GCC build process and build
> GNAT from sources. The Windows target would make this particularly
> tricky, since Windows is maximally uncooperative for such tasks. I have
> not ever heard of anyone wanting to do a cross with windows as a target
> before, so I doubt there is any prior experience here, especially from
> FreeBSD *to* Win32.
> 
Would It be better to use jgnat for cross platform devlopement?
I am new to Ada and I am looking forward to learning to develope mission 
  critical code. Most of my code are done with interpreters (forth,tcl 
and a little python)

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[David Brown]

Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote:

>                                                                  I have
> not ever heard of anyone wanting to do a cross with windows as a target
> before, so I doubt there is any prior experience here, especially from
> FreeBSD *to* Win32.

Although I've never had the privilege/curse of having to develop
software for Win32, I think that if I ever did, I would seriously
consider developing on a different platform and targeting Win32.  I find
Win32 one of the most uncooperative development platforms I have ever
used.

Of course, its uncooperativeness also would make it a very difficult
target to cross compile to.

This issue may come up at some point, since I may consider porting Adump
to win32 at some point.  I would probably just compile it natively, and
use network shares so I can edit on my desktop machine.

But, much of the world seems to disagree with me.  Oh well.

David Brown

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Robert R. Beaver]

David Brown wrote:
> Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>                                                                 I have
>>not ever heard of anyone wanting to do a cross with windows as a target
>>before, so I doubt there is any prior experience here, especially from
>>FreeBSD *to* Win32.
>>
> 
> Although I've never had the privilege/curse of having to develop
> software for Win32, I think that if I ever did, I would seriously
> consider developing on a different platform and targeting Win32.  I find
> Win32 one of the most uncooperative development platforms I have ever
> used.
> 
> Of course, its uncooperativeness also would make it a very difficult
> target to cross compile to.
> 
> This issue may come up at some point, since I may consider porting Adump
> to win32 at some point.  I would probably just compile it natively, and
> use network shares so I can edit on my desktop machine.
> 
> But, much of the world seems to disagree with me.  Oh well.
> 
> David Brown
> 


I my machine has not had windows on it for several years. unfortunatly I 
need to write program for work. (windows) Well, Maybe I should Develope 
on my machine and compile it on the work machine. I just don't want 
windows to crash during a long compile.

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Pascal Obry]

"Robert R. Beaver" <beaveroregon@qwest.net> writes:

> I my machine has not had windows on it for several years. unfortunatly I need
> to write program for work. (windows) Well, Maybe I should Develope on my
> machine and compile it on the work machine. I just don't want windows to
> crash during a long compile.

Please don't be so hard with Windows. I have yet to find my XP box to
crash... And yes I'm pushing it a lot :) Windows 2000/XP are very stable.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On 11 May 2002 20:17:08 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote:
> Please don't be so hard with Windows. I have yet to find my XP box to
> crash... And yes I'm pushing it a lot :) Windows 2000/XP are very stable.

But oh so cumbersome compared to Linux when doing development. In
windows you *need* an IDE, in Linux you can do most of these things in
other ways.

Preben

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[DPH]

On Sat, 11 May 2002 20:21:06 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol
<randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

>On 11 May 2002 20:17:08 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote:
>> Please don't be so hard with Windows. I have yet to find my XP box to
>> crash... And yes I'm pushing it a lot :) Windows 2000/XP are very stable.
>
>But oh so cumbersome compared to Linux when doing development. In
>windows you *need* an IDE, in Linux you can do most of these things in
>other ways.
>
>Preben

Not to be argumentative, but please describe.  Just take debugging for
example.

In Borland C++, I can make the cursor hover over most any variable on
the screen and get the value given to me in a popup tooltip.  I find
that very convenient and can't see how a command line interface (or
anything else besides an IDE or other graphical interface, although
you may have some mechanism I'm not familiar with) would be as
convenient.

In Borland, I can bring up the whole array of breakpoints I have, and,
in a window, see how they are configured - whether they are
instantaneous breaks or count passes or wait for conditions and if so
be able to view the conditions.  How is such convenience accomplished
without an IDE?

I've thought about going to Linux for reasons having to do with Bill
building in copy protection to things like Windows Media Player and
trying to keep it all hush-hush (but hush-hush doesn't work with the
internet around! <G>) and just generally being too damn friendly with
those that want to make it possible for record companies to be able to
force you to listen to a song on just 1 machine, not be able to rip it
to a CD and take it in the car, etc.  Linux looks like a way around
that.  And my Win 98 will do it now, and I'm not buying W2K or XP or
etc. that are likely to be used against me.  So... there's linux,
which is built for users, not for record companies.

So, anyway, I've thought of going to Linux as described, but have
dreaded it as a step backward with having to deal with a command line
again (I hate that...)  Of course, now there's Borland Builder 6 for
Linux, and GPS is coming for Ada.  Wheee...  

Dave Head

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On Sat, 11 May 2002 21:09:12 -0400, DPH wrote:
> 
> Not to be argumentative, but please describe.  Just take debugging for
> example.
> 
[snipped description of debugging in Borland C++]

GVD -- http://libre.act-europe.fr/gvd/

I didn't say that an IDE can't have advantages, I said that on Windows
you feel very desperate if you don't have an IDE as you lack a lot of
very nice tools. You can of course use cygwin in Windows, but at least
my experience with this is that it is more cumbersome than working in
Linux directly. There wouldn't be a drive to make IDE's for Linux if
there are no advantages.

As you can see here: http://freshmeat.net/browse/65/?topic_id=65
There are 112 tries to develop some sort of IDEs.

> So, anyway, I've thought of going to Linux as described, but have
> dreaded it as a step backward with having to deal with a command line
> again (I hate that...)  Of course, now there's Borland Builder 6 for
> Linux, and GPS is coming for Ada.  Wheee...  

You don't have to use the command line so much as you think. Here is a
screenshot of my Vim editor with a simple IDE that utilises a these
command line arguments for you. 

   http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/Ada95/vim-with-IDE.png

I can use this in windows too, but then I would have to install things
like cygwin to get it to work.

I recommend that you install Linux (Choose Debian as this is much easier
distribution to work with as soon as you have gotten it installed. It is
a bit harder to install than other distributions though) on a machine
and try it a bit while you still use Windows to get used to it.

Preben
-- 

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Dave Head]

Hi Preben,

Thanks for the heads-up on these.  I have a couple options for Linux which I
will likely try one eventually (I'm way too busy building a ham radio
station right now...K8DH - digging holes for tower foundations, installing
my gee-whiz new radio in the car (worked on that most all weekend - still
not done...))   One is an old pentium computer.  Another is a computer that
is about to be a victim of the Navy's NMCI effort to get outside contractors
maintaining all the PCs.  This would be EDS, and they want to _rent_ us
computers - and we have the opportunity to buy our old machines from them
because its in the contract that they become EDS property.  Since this is a
1000 mhz pentium, that I may be able to get for $500, I probably will.  Its
got win2K / ntfs, etc.  It may be a candidate for a memory upgrade to about
a Gig, bigger disk, and VM-Ware and dual OS use via the VMware if I take
advantage of this.  Dunno why they're being so nice to us, except it may be
that its more profitable than trying to recycle these computers...

Dave Head

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnadseo3.120.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no...
> On Sat, 11 May 2002 21:09:12 -0400, DPH wrote:
> >
> > Not to be argumentative, but please describe.  Just take debugging for
> > example.
> >
> [snipped description of debugging in Borland C++]
>
> GVD -- http://libre.act-europe.fr/gvd/
>
> I didn't say that an IDE can't have advantages, I said that on Windows
> you feel very desperate if you don't have an IDE as you lack a lot of
> very nice tools. You can of course use cygwin in Windows, but at least
> my experience with this is that it is more cumbersome than working in
> Linux directly. There wouldn't be a drive to make IDE's for Linux if
> there are no advantages.
>
> As you can see here: http://freshmeat.net/browse/65/?topic_id=65
> There are 112 tries to develop some sort of IDEs.
>
> > So, anyway, I've thought of going to Linux as described, but have
> > dreaded it as a step backward with having to deal with a command line
> > again (I hate that...)  Of course, now there's Borland Builder 6 for
> > Linux, and GPS is coming for Ada.  Wheee...
>
> You don't have to use the command line so much as you think. Here is a
> screenshot of my Vim editor with a simple IDE that utilises a these
> command line arguments for you.
>
>    http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/Ada95/vim-with-IDE.png
>
> I can use this in windows too, but then I would have to install things
> like cygwin to get it to work.
>
> I recommend that you install Linux (Choose Debian as this is much easier
> distribution to work with as soon as you have gotten it installed. It is
> a bit harder to install than other distributions though) on a machine
> and try it a bit while you still use Windows to get used to it.
>
> Preben
> --

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Pascal Obry]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:

> On 11 May 2002 20:17:08 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote:
> > Please don't be so hard with Windows. I have yet to find my XP box to
> > crash... And yes I'm pushing it a lot :) Windows 2000/XP are very stable.
> 
> But oh so cumbersome compared to Linux when doing development. In
> windows you *need* an IDE, in Linux you can do most of these things in
> other ways.

This is just plain false. I do deveopment in both Linux and Windows (lot more
on Windows than on Linux) and I have (as other peoples have said here too) the
exact same environment. EMACS, GNAT, Cygwin, cvs, VM, GNUS...

I would say that it is a easier to develop on Linux, but nothing seems so
cumbersome on Windows. It was cumbersome on Win9x with old version of Cygwin
because the CRLF handling was not properly done. These days this is not true
and again Windows 2000/XP are very reliable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not paid by Microsoft :), just that I find the Windows
OS moving to the right direction... And looking at MacOSX I start thinking
that this could be the right OS for everything: developement because it is
based on BSD -not need for Cygwin-, and office work as the full set of
Microsoft Office toolset has been ported.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On 12 May 2002 10:30:45 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote:
> This is just plain false. I do deveopment in both Linux and Windows (lot more
> on Windows than on Linux) and I have (as other peoples have said here too) the
> exact same environment. EMACS, GNAT, Cygwin, cvs, VM, GNUS...

Why do you use EMACS and Cygwin in Windows then? ;-) Not exactly tools
in the spirit of Windows.

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not paid by Microsoft :), just that I find the Windows
> OS moving to the right direction... And looking at MacOSX I start thinking

Which direction is that then? 

Preben

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Pascal Obry]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:

> On 12 May 2002 10:30:45 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote:
> > This is just plain false. I do deveopment in both Linux and Windows (lot
> > more on Windows than on Linux) and I have (as other peoples have said here
> > too) the exact same environment. EMACS, GNAT, Cygwin, cvs, VM, GNUS...
> 
> Why do you use EMACS and Cygwin in Windows then? ;-) Not exactly tools
> in the spirit of Windows.

Because I think OS and applications are somehow orthogonal, no ? It is maybe
not in the "spirit" of Windows but it works just fine on Windows too. Why not
use them ? And this way I have the same environement on Linux and Windows
which is good for productivity. Just my 2 cents :)

> Which direction is that then? 

The same box for developement, office work, image/video processing... In my
compagny it is common for developers to have 2 computers, one with Linux/UNIX
for developement and one for office work (my compagny have made the choice of
Microsoft Office and Lotus Notes). There is not Linux version. Some have tried
some virtual machine like VMWare but it needs a lot of memory and is not that
easy to handle... then MacOSX came... and all this work is possible on the
same box! Give it a try.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Ted Dennison]

Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<uy9epdayy.fsf_-_@wanadoo.fr>...
> Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:
> This is just plain false. I do deveopment in both Linux and Windows (lot more
> on Windows than on Linux) and I have (as other peoples have said here too) the
> exact same environment. EMACS, GNAT, Cygwin, cvs, VM, GNUS...

Same here. The first thing I do with any new system (Irix, SunOs,
HP/UX, Windows, etc.) is install emacs, gcc, gnat, and co. If
anything, on Windows it is *easier*, since prebuilt binaries are
available. It doesn't quite beat Linux, since those all come with
Linux to start. But then, I can't play Morrowind on Linux either. :-)

> OS moving to the right direction... And looking at MacOSX I start thinking
> that this could be the right OS for everything: developement because it is
> based on BSD -not need for Cygwin-, and office work as the full set of
> Microsoft Office toolset has been ported.

I can live w/o MSOffice. In fact, I am living without it at home just
fine (proud StarOffice user here). OSX is still not cutting the
mustard where games are concerned though. As long as Windows is *the*
gaming OS, I'm a Windows user. :-(


-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html (down)

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[James Ross]

On 13 May 2002 07:33:44 -0700, Ted Dennison wrote:

>I can live w/o MSOffice. 

Most people can't :(  Even if assuming you have seamless networking
between your home and work, you still have to deal with file
conversion (and isn't that a faulty process?). 

>As long as Windows is *the*
>gaming OS, I'm a Windows user. :-(

Windows is the best consumer available OS period. And it will remain
so for a long time. The only one that ever came close was Apple years
ago� but Jobs screwed it up by pushing the Mac instead of the II
series.  Other mentionables that had their chance was IBM, Commodore,
& Tandy. 

My prediction is that Linux will *never* be consumer grade because of
lack of standards and ease of use. The mentality that the primary
interface is the command line and the only way to really install
something is to ./configure will prevail on Linux for years to come.
JR

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On Tue, 14 May 2002 03:51:05 GMT, James Ross wrote:
> My prediction is that Linux will *never* be consumer grade because of
> lack of standards and ease of use. The mentality that the primary
> interface is the command line and the only way to really install
> something is to ./configure will prevail on Linux for years to come.

Which says more about your lack of knowledge and not the current state
nor future. It is far easier to install software on Debian Linux than
any Windows version for instance.

Preben

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Stephen Leake]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:

> On Tue, 14 May 2002 03:51:05 GMT, James Ross wrote:
> > My prediction is that Linux will *never* be consumer grade because of
> > lack of standards and ease of use. The mentality that the primary
> > interface is the command line and the only way to really install
> > something is to ./configure will prevail on Linux for years to come.
> 
> Which says more about your lack of knowledge and not the current state
> nor future. It is far easier to install software on Debian Linux than
> any Windows version for instance.

You'll have to back that up. Here's an example from my recent
experience:

To install GNAT 3.14p:

Debian Linux:

start dselect (I _think_ that's the name; I don't have my Debian
system handy).

type / gnat

oops; only gnat 3.12 is available.

Use Emacs ftp to get gnat-3.14p source from a mirror

tar zxf gnat-3.14p

cd gnat 3.14p

./do-config

./run-config

make

make install

done (finally)


On Windows:

Use Emacs or GUI ftp client to get gnat-3.14p.exe from a mirror

In Windows Explorer, double click on it

follow install wizard instructions.

about 4 clicks later: done

Now, if I had picked an app for which Debian has a package avialable,
say Emacs, the two are about the same; one click each. Still have to
remember the command 'dselect' in Debian, though.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On 14 May 2002 11:04:46 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> You'll have to back that up. Here's an example from my recent
> experience:

I don't take on me other peoples lack of knowledge about Debian ;-) (se
below)


> To install GNAT 3.14p:
> 
> Debian Linux:
> 
[snipped description]

NO NO NO NO NO completely wrong! (besides why didn't you get the:
gnat-3.14p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin.tar.gz when you clearly too the binary
version in windows?)

Look at:

   http://packages.debian.org/testing/devel/gnat.html

Gnat 3.14p is in testing. You simply install it from there. The point is
that you have only set up Debian stable and Debian stable is excatly
that; stable from when it was realeased. Only security issues warrents 
an upgrade of a package. 

Debian Testing contains the packages that will go into the next Debian
Stable and is being updated until there is a distribution freeze. And
Debian unstable contains all bleeding edge pacakges. I suggest you read
a bit about this.

If you add testing to your apt source.list and then you do:

apt-get update
apt-get istall gnat

and it will install 3.14p and make sure that your other libraries also
are updated (ex. gktada)


> On Windows:
> 
[snipped description]

> Now, if I had picked an app for which Debian has a package avialable,
> say Emacs, the two are about the same; one click each. Still have to
> remember the command 'dselect' in Debian, though.

Absolutely not true. If you want to update your debian system you simply
do:

apt-get update
apt-get upgrade

and then all packages that have been updated will be installed. Besides
the integrety of your entire system will be intact as apt-get will also
install all packages that this package needs. This you do not have in
Windows at all.

apt-get install emacs 
will not only install emacs, but will also install all packages that
emacs is *dependant* on. This will not happen in Windows.

When the current Debian Testing (named Woody) becomes stable in a short
(hopefully) time, then all you need to do is:

apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade

to update your entire system without destroying your preferences etc...

Now please tell me how simple it is to update from say 98 to XP :-)

Preben

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Stephen Leake]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:

> On 14 May 2002 11:04:46 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
> > 
> > You'll have to back that up. Here's an example from my recent
> > experience:
> 
> I don't take on me other peoples lack of knowledge about Debian ;-) (se
> below)

Fair enough.

> NO NO NO NO NO completely wrong! (besides why didn't you get the:
> gnat-3.14p-i686-pc-linux-gnu-bin.tar.gz when you clearly too the binary
> version in windows?)

Actually, that _is_ what I did. Sorry! It was 3.15 that I did from
source. Still many steps for 3.14p.

> Look at:
> 
>    http://packages.debian.org/testing/devel/gnat.html

Well, I want a _stable_ system, not a _testing_ system. Windows NT is
a _stable_ system.

> If you add testing to your apt source.list and then you do:
> 
> apt-get update
> apt-get istall gnat
> 
> and it will install 3.14p and make sure that your other libraries also
> are updated (ex. gktada)

I started down that road, and it was the Debian version of "dll hell".
_Everything_ needed to be upgraded.

I have used 'apt-get'. I prefer "dselect"; it shows a list of what's
available (so I don't have to remember the package name either), and
offers to delete the downloaded package when done installing.

The point here is that this is _not_ trivial. Debian does a good job
of trying to keep things tested and consistent, and I _like_ that! But
the gnat 3.14p Debian package requires too many "unstable" libraries
for my taste. The binary install from ACT was much simpler, just not
quite as simple as the Windows version.

Neither apt-get nor dselect is as 'user-friendly' as Install Shield
when it comes to customizing an installation.

Actually, the Windows version has a different problem; it uses the
Registry. So I can't have two versions of GNAT installed
simultaneously; I need both 3.15a (supported) and 3.14p (public). I've
figured out some of the registry swapping required, but I often find
myself re-installing one or the other version.

I'll stick to Debian stable, thank you!

> > On Windows:
> > 
> [snipped description]
> 
> > Now, if I had picked an app for which Debian has a package avialable,
> > say Emacs, the two are about the same; one click each. Still have to
> > remember the command 'dselect' in Debian, though.
> 
> Absolutely not true. If you want to update your debian system you simply
> do:
> 
> apt-get update
> apt-get upgrade

Ok. So I have to remember "apt-get" instead of "dselect". And I'm
_not_ talking about "upgrading the system"; I'm talking about
"upgrading one application (Emacs)". So I have to remember what
apt-get calls the emacs package. dselect _shows_ me what it is called! 

> and then all packages that have been updated will be installed.
> Besides the integrety of your entire system will be intact as
> apt-get will also install all packages that this package needs. 

Assuming you aren't starting from "stable" and trying to install a
"testing" package. If you are, 'apt-get' will get very lost.

> This you do not have in Windows at all.

This is true.

> apt-get install emacs will not only install emacs, but will also
> install all packages that emacs is *dependant* on. 

True

> This will not happen in Windows.

Hmm. Most Windows install packages I've used offer to install stuff
that is missing; usually Direct X version y or Apple Quicktime version
z. Or they just install the required DLL themselves, sometimes with bad
results. Windows tends to be less "modularized" than Debian, so there
are fewer small pieces that might need to be upgraded.

Granted there is no standard way to enforce the dependencies, as
Debian provides.

> When the current Debian Testing (named Woody) becomes stable in a
> short (hopefully) time, then all you need to do is:
> 
> apt-get update
> apt-get dist-upgrade
> 
> to update your entire system without destroying your preferences etc...

I think I'll make a full disk backup first :).

> Now please tell me how simple it is to update from say 98 to XP :-)

Simple. Make a full disk backup, and buy a new computer :).

A bigger point is that I am _not_ a typical computer consumer. We
should be comparing notes on how to install Myst, or the latest
Quicken upgrade. (What? Those are not available for Linux? oh well,
never mind :). 

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Marin David Condic]

An important thing to recall is that several years ago the Macintosh raised
the bar on ease of installation. Install a new device? Plug it in! Install
new software? Insert the disk! Granted, it wasn't always perfect and there
were prices to be paid, but it sure made it easy (usually) for the average
non-geek to handle.

Microsoft started getting things right with the emergence of NT and in its
subsequent incarnations. Software installations at least usually involve
inserting the disk and saying "yes" to all the install shield options. Is
Linux there? I'm not a Linux user, but I followed the prior posts and it
sure sounded like "Really, its all very simple. First you have to know the
secret handshake, then you've got to recite the proper incantation when the
full moon rises, then you've got to slaughter a goat and put it entrails on
the keyboard..... What could be more obvious???" It does *not* sound as
simple to me as "Insert the disk. Clik on "Yes" until the install shield
goes away." ("Simpler", might be "Insert the disk. Wait for it to pop out.",
but maybe we're not there yet...)

If you can install software on Linux as simply as this, then let me know.
But until you can, Linux is going to be hamstrung if it wants to become "Joe
Sixpack Consumer Linux".

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"Stephen Leake" <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:uptzyu0sy.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov...
>
> A bigger point is that I am _not_ a typical computer consumer. We
> should be comparing notes on how to install Myst, or the latest
> Quicken upgrade. (What? Those are not available for Linux? oh well,
> never mind :).
>

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On 14 May 2002 12:55:09 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
> Well, I want a _stable_ system, not a _testing_ system. Windows NT is
> a _stable_ system.

Debian testing is _stable_ now. I've been using it for 1 year.

> for my taste. The binary install from ACT was much simpler, just not
> quite as simple as the Windows version.

Though it may be simple, you must still recompile all your libraries
like libgtkada asis etc... 

> Neither apt-get nor dselect is as 'user-friendly' as Install Shield
> when it comes to customizing an installation.

Please explain.

> I'll stick to Debian stable, thank you!

Well Testing will catch up with you in short time. Actually it was
sceduled for release 1 May, but was delayed.

> Ok. So I have to remember "apt-get" instead of "dselect". And I'm

If you have such a bad memory I'm surprised you manage to code in the
first place. ;-) I don't buy it. But then use gnome-apt or some other
graphical frontend. Sorry but I have dealt with Debian and windows for
years now and Debian proves time and time again to be much more easy.

When I got my new laptop at work I had a Debian system up and running
with *all* packages I had on my desktop system in 55 min and *one*
reboot. Installing Windows took 3 hours (mainly due to network driver
problems) and then I had to start installing the software which took
about 5 hours and I guess about 15-20 reboots.

> _not_ talking about "upgrading the system"; I'm talking about
> "upgrading one application (Emacs)". So I have to remember what
> apt-get calls the emacs package. dselect _shows_ me what it is called!

But then you use dselect or gnome-apt. The only thing you need is to
tell them to look in the right place for a new version.

> I think I'll make a full disk backup first :).

You can do that, but I would be more concerned in backing up my data not
programs I can download ;-)

> A bigger point is that I am _not_ a typical computer consumer. We
> should be comparing notes on how to install Myst, or the latest
> Quicken upgrade. (What? Those are not available for Linux? oh well,
> never mind :). 

If I had time for games I would choose interactive fiction, but what we
should do is make more Ada software. And speaking of this I'll need help
porting my app to Windows. ;-) (Porting being basicly how to deal with
where to put config files etc... the rest should recompile on a GNAT
compiler. But first I have to wait for GtkAda 2.0 and Gtk+ 2.0 binaries)

Preben

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Stephen Leake]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:

> On 14 May 2002 12:55:09 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
> > Well, I want a _stable_ system, not a _testing_ system. Windows NT is
> > a _stable_ system.
> 
> Debian testing is _stable_ now. I've been using it for 1 year.

Well, apparently "the Debian committee", whoever that is, disagrees
with you; the name is still "testing"!

> > for my taste. The binary install from ACT was much simpler, just
> > not quite as simple as the Windows version.
> 
> Though it may be simple, you must still recompile all your libraries
> like libgtkada asis etc... 

True, but irrelevant. Are you implying that 'apt-get install gnat'
will also update gtkada? I hope not!

> > Neither apt-get nor dselect is as 'user-friendly' as Install
> > Shield when it comes to customizing an installation.
> 
> Please explain.

Well, when was the last time you used Install Shield? On a good
package, it gives you choices about where to install it, which
optional sub-packages to install, which language to use, which help
file formats to install, etc.

Debian apt-get gives no choice for any of these.

> > I'll stick to Debian stable, thank you!
> 
> Well Testing will catch up with you in short time. Actually it was
> sceduled for release 1 May, but was delayed.

Ok, I'll get it when it comes out.

> > Ok. So I have to remember "apt-get" instead of "dselect". And I'm
> 
> If you have such a bad memory I'm surprised you manage to code in the
> first place. ;-) I don't buy it. But then use gnome-apt or some other
> graphical frontend. 

Ok. That was my point; in Windows, you have a standard graphical front
end that makes it fairly easy to find things that you want to install;
just look in your "downloads" directory, and select the file you want.
If I use command-line 'apt-get', there is no such list. If you had
started this by saying "use gnome-apt", rather than by saying "use
apt-get", I'd be more sympathetic.

> Sorry but I have dealt with Debian and windows for years now and
> Debian proves time and time again to be much more easy.

I agree; for the work I really want to do, Debian is better. For
installing packages like Myst and Quicken, Windows (more precisely
Install Shield) is better (and not just because they don't exist for
Linux!).

> When I got my new laptop at work I had a Debian system up and
> running with *all* packages I had on my desktop system in 55 min and
> *one* reboot. Installing Windows took 3 hours (mainly due to network
> driver problems) and then I had to start installing the software
> which took about 5 hours and I guess about 15-20 reboots.

Did you end up with the _same_ set of application software on each
system? I suspect not! 

You also got lucky with Debian; there are far more network driver
cards supported by Windows than by Debian.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Robert R. Beaver]

Stephen Leake wrote:
> Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:
> 
> 
>>On 14 May 2002 12:55:09 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I want a _stable_ system, not a _testing_ system. Windows NT is
>>>a _stable_ system.
>>>
>>Debian testing is _stable_ now. I've been using it for 1 year.
>>
> 
> Well, apparently "the Debian committee", whoever that is, disagrees
> with you; the name is still "testing"!
> 
> 
>>>for my taste. The binary install from ACT was much simpler, just
>>>not quite as simple as the Windows version.
>>>
>>Though it may be simple, you must still recompile all your libraries
>>like libgtkada asis etc... 
>>
> 
> True, but irrelevant. Are you implying that 'apt-get install gnat'
> will also update gtkada? I hope not!
> 
> 
>>>Neither apt-get nor dselect is as 'user-friendly' as Install
>>>Shield when it comes to customizing an installation.
>>>
>>Please explain.
>>
> 
> Well, when was the last time you used Install Shield? On a good
> package, it gives you choices about where to install it, which
> optional sub-packages to install, which language to use, which help
> file formats to install, etc.
> 
> Debian apt-get gives no choice for any of these.
> 
> 
>>>I'll stick to Debian stable, thank you!
>>>
>>Well Testing will catch up with you in short time. Actually it was
>>sceduled for release 1 May, but was delayed.
>>
> 
> Ok, I'll get it when it comes out.
> 
> 
>>>Ok. So I have to remember "apt-get" instead of "dselect". And I'm
>>>
>>If you have such a bad memory I'm surprised you manage to code in the
>>first place. ;-) I don't buy it. But then use gnome-apt or some other
>>graphical frontend. 
>>
> 
> Ok. That was my point; in Windows, you have a standard graphical front
> end that makes it fairly easy to find things that you want to install;
> just look in your "downloads" directory, and select the file you want.
> If I use command-line 'apt-get', there is no such list. If you had
> started this by saying "use gnome-apt", rather than by saying "use
> apt-get", I'd be more sympathetic.
> 
> 
>>Sorry but I have dealt with Debian and windows for years now and
>>Debian proves time and time again to be much more easy.
>>
> 
> I agree; for the work I really want to do, Debian is better. For
> installing packages like Myst and Quicken, Windows (more precisely
> Install Shield) is better (and not just because they don't exist for
> Linux!).
> 
> 
>>When I got my new laptop at work I had a Debian system up and
>>running with *all* packages I had on my desktop system in 55 min and
>>*one* reboot. Installing Windows took 3 hours (mainly due to network
>>driver problems) and then I had to start installing the software
>>which took about 5 hours and I guess about 15-20 reboots.
>>
> 
> Did you end up with the _same_ set of application software on each
> system? I suspect not! 
> 
> You also got lucky with Debian; there are far more network driver
> cards supported by Windows than by Debian.
> 
> 
I Didn't mean to turn this news group int in to a OS flame war.
I would like to see ithis thread get back on track of the problem of 
cross compiling. If we can resolve that, then it would benefit UNIX and 
Windows alike. I will Try to keep my OS BIOS out of the picture.

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Ingo Marks]

James Ross wrote:

> On 13 May 2002 07:33:44 -0700, Ted Dennison wrote:

> Most people can't :(  Even if assuming you have seamless networking
> between your home and work, you still have to deal with file
> conversion (and isn't that a faulty process?).

MS has shot itself into its feet with their new customer-unfriendly License 
6.0 which forces them to buy every software upgrade (if they need it or 
not) raising software costs between 33% and 107%. Gartner and Giga state 
that about 30% of MS customers are not willing to sign the new license and 
other 30% don't know yet if they should. Many will switch to Linux and 
StarOffice.

> Windows is the best consumer available OS period. 

... until MacOSX came ;-)

> lack of standards and ease of use. The mentality that the primary
> interface is the command line and the only way to really install
> something is to ./configure will prevail on Linux for years to come.
> JR

That simply isn't true. Current Linux distributions provide precompiled 
(binary) applications and use nice-looking graphical administration tools 
which makes program installation a toy, even for beginners. Command shells 
are _not_ necessary to maintain a Linux system, but in many situations they 
make your work done much faster than clicking through several menus.

Keep in mind that most users buy pre-installed and pre-configured 
Windows-PCs. IMHO pre-installed and pre-configured Linux-PCs could be the 
same userfriendly as Windows PCs - even more secure and stable.

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Ted Dennison]

Ingo Marks <adv@region-nord.de> wrote in message news:<abqnaf$ogc$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> James Ross wrote:
> 
> > On 13 May 2002 07:33:44 -0700, Ted Dennison wrote:
>  
> > Most people can't :(  Even if assuming you have seamless networking
> > between your home and work, you still have to deal with file
> > conversion (and isn't that a faulty process?).

For the record, I think it was James saying this, not me.


-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html (down)

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Robert Dewar]

James Ross <rem.jr@rem.webross.com> wrote in message news:<gbu0euoblrr1vmeb21tiarhmv4aqqih7lv@4ax.com>...
> On 13 May 2002 07:33:44 -0700, Ted Dennison wrote:
 
> My prediction is that Linux will *never* be consumer grade because of
> lack of standards and ease of use.

Of course when someone makes a claim like this, you never know whether it
is informed or not.

> The mentality that the primary
> interface is the command line and the only way to really install
> something is to ./configure will prevail on Linux for years to come.

But when it is accompanied by plain misinformation like this, then
you know :-)

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <5ee5b646.0205140613.14b17df4@posting.google.com>, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> James Ross <rem.jr@rem.webross.com> wrote in message news:<gbu0euoblrr1vmeb21tiarhmv4aqqih7lv@4ax.com>...
>> On 13 May 2002 07:33:44 -0700, Ted Dennison wrote:
>  
>> My prediction is that Linux will *never* be consumer grade because of
>> lack of standards and ease of use.
> 
> Of course when someone makes a claim like this, you never know whether it
> is informed or not.

For me it is hard to discern the discipline in which they need to be
informed in order to be accurate.  Marketing, and psychology would
seem to be more useful than programming, but best of all would be a
thorough background in time-travel.

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Marin David Condic]

Time travel and crystal balls would be the most useful field of all. :-) I
agree that a technical background is only mildly useful in predicting what
will be the dominant technology. Technical knowledge gives you some sense of
"Features" but lots more goes into buying decisions than just "Features"
(try "Costs" and "Benefits" as the two other categories typically
identified.) Experts in marketing would be far better equipped in
identifying what the market is likely to be buying in the next few years.

Linux certainly has its die-hard followers and it has made some significant
inroads into the market. But the last time I checked at Costco, I didn't see
a single machine sitting on the shelf that had Linux installed. Do any of
the major manufacturers of PCs offer Linux as a pre-installed package?
(Maybe some do - I have not checked lately) Are machines from major
manufacturers available with Linux running on them, on display at CompUSA?
When you go into Best Buy and leaf through all the jewl-box editions of
software being offered up - or even the up-scale packages in boxes with
manuals, how much Linux software do you see?

Saying you can get the same stuff from the Internet free or cheap and go
cobble your own OS/Apps together from there is saying "Only geeks will use
Linux." I think when Linux has access to the gondolas and shelves in the big
consumer electronics stores, we can start talking about it being a real
threat to Windows. Until then, its largely a *potential* threat - albeit one
that Bill Gates clearly takes very seriously.

To get mildly back on topic, Ada advocates might take a lesson from that.
Ada needs to appear in places where programmers make buy-decisions and needs
to address what it is that programmers want to buy. To some extent, Ada is
dealing with this much better of late. But it sure would be good to have
some professional marketing research available & a marketing strategy carved
out.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:qsXCmOF9Z+l+@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> For me it is hard to discern the discipline in which they need to be
> informed in order to be accurate.  Marketing, and psychology would
> seem to be more useful than programming, but best of all would be a
> thorough background in time-travel.

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Ted Dennison]

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote in message news:<5ee5b646.0205140613.14b17df4@posting.google.com>...
> James Ross <rem.jr@rem.webross.com> wrote in message news:<gbu0euoblrr1vmeb21tiarhmv4aqqih7lv@4ax.com>...
> > On 13 May 2002 07:33:44 -0700, Ted Dennison wrote:
>  
> > My prediction is that Linux will *never* be consumer grade because of
> > lack of standards and ease of use.

People, PLEASE be more careful in your quoting. Out of 6 responses
I've seen to this message so far (including mine), 3 have cut it to
look like *I* wrote this foolishness instead of James.

I'm sure to James its not "foolishness", but to me it is. Either way,
the proper person should take the "credit". :-)

-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html (down)

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On 14 May 2002 11:32:06 -0700, Ted Dennison wrote:
> dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote in message news:<5ee5b646.0205140613.14b17df4@posting.google.com>...
>> James Ross <rem.jr@rem.webross.com> wrote in message news:<gbu0euoblrr1vmeb21tiarhmv4aqqih7lv@4ax.com>...
>> > On 13 May 2002 07:33:44 -0700, Ted Dennison wrote:
>>  
>> > My prediction is that Linux will *never* be consumer grade because of
>> > lack of standards and ease of use.
> 
> People, PLEASE be more careful in your quoting. Out of 6 responses
> I've seen to this message so far (including mine), 3 have cut it to
> look like *I* wrote this foolishness instead of James.
> 
> I'm sure to James its not "foolishness", but to me it is. Either way,
> the proper person should take the "credit". :-)

The problem is that some have a mangled News reader that do not put in
who they are quoting. I don't think people deliberately cuts away the
names as that would be plain stupid. So if all could please check their
news reader an make sure the name gets added on top we could avoid this
problem.

Preben

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[James Ross]

On 14 May 2002 11:32:06 -0700, dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)
wrote:
>People, PLEASE be more careful in your quoting. Out of 6 responses
>I've seen to this message so far (including mine), 3 have cut it to
>look like *I* wrote this foolishness instead of James.
>
>I'm sure to James its not "foolishness", but to me it is. Either way,
>the proper person should take the "credit". :-)

I guess that was silly of me to post my opinion on this in the manner
that I did.  It was my opinion mixed with a little prejudice against
Linux.  I deserved to be flamed.  I felt it was relevant in this
thread at the time I wrote it, but in retrospect I don't think it was.

I did not mean to put you in the spot of people thinking you wrote
these comments.  Sorry about that ... it wont happen again :)
JR

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Ted Dennison]

James Ross <rem.jr@rem.webross.com> wrote in message news:<v5h3eu42ap6ud9i3lf786mkvkj70sh6ljf@4ax.com>...
> On 14 May 2002 11:32:06 -0700, dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)
> wrote:
> >People, PLEASE be more careful in your quoting. Out of 6 responses
> >I've seen to this message so far (including mine), 3 have cut it to
> >look like *I* wrote this foolishness instead of James.

> I did not mean to put you in the spot of people thinking you wrote
> these comments.  Sorry about that ... it wont happen again :)

Actually, you are, oddly enough, one of the few people in this thread
with nothing to apologise for. :-)

Not that I want any apologies at all. I can take it; I'm a big boy. I
would just like folks to be a wee bit more aware in their quoting next
time. Perhaps keep it to only *one* miss-attribution per post? :-)


-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html (down)

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Ted Dennison]

James Ross <rem.jr@rem.webross.com> wrote in message news:<gbu0euoblrr1vmeb21tiarhmv4aqqih7lv@4ax.com>...
> On 13 May 2002 07:33:44 -0700, Ted Dennison wrote:
> 
> >I can live w/o MSOffice. 
> 
> Most people can't :(  Even if assuming you have seamless networking
> between your home and work, you still have to deal with file
> conversion (and isn't that a faulty process?).

I'd like to see numbers on that. I think "most people" can get by just
fine without any computer at all at home. Certianly almost everyone I
know in RL could do without theirs. I'll buy that there is a small but
important *minority* of folks out there that feel like they need to
take work home, and whose work involves producing Office-type
documents. But I'd suspect most of them could even make do just fine
with StarOffice or OpenOffice, if they stick to portable features and
file formats (or just use OpenOffice at work to do their printouts).

> Windows is the best consumer available OS period. And it will remain

I'm not sure what is meant by "consumer available OS". I do think that
the NT-kernel Windows variants are a lot better OS's than most people
give them credit for. All those years of Win3.1 and 9x series (which
were really completely different OS's with some compatabilies) gave it
a bad name that will be tough to live down.

> My prediction is that Linux will *never* be consumer grade because of
> lack of standards and ease of use. The mentality that the primary
> interface is the command line and the only way to really install
> something is to ./configure will prevail on Linux for years to come.

That I don't know about. Linux is worlds better in this regard than it
was 6 years ago when I first heard of it. NT (3.51) at the time was a
bit worse than today, but not immensely. I wouldn't be so bold as to
predict that the relative pace of improvement between these two OS's
is suddenly going to change. Perhaps it will, but I see no obvious
reason why it would, and no signs of it starting to do so.


-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html (down)

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Darren New]

James Ross wrote:
> My prediction is that Linux will *never* be consumer grade because of
> lack of standards and ease of use. 

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/01/fog0000000096.shtml

-- 
Darren New 
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
** http://home.san.rr.com/dnew/DNResume.html **

   The 90/10 rule of toothpaste: the last 10% of 
         the tube lasts as long as the first 90%.

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Marin David Condic]

An excellent article and one that makes some very valid points about the
current Open Source situation. The observation about Open Source distributed
development being a "Me Too" kind of thing is very important. It sees
something it likes and then it emulates it rather than looking at who the
customer is and what he wants and tries to *invent* something to satisfy the
need. Maybe Linux is successful because it provides a better/cheaper Unix,
but it doesn't exactly break open any vast undiscovered new territory.

The only dispute I might have with the article is that just because there
are weaknesses in the distributed, volunteer, open source development model
that lots of apps can't or won't appear for Linux. If Linux has a big enough
installed base, developers may be tempted to start porting apps to it.
(Linux doesn't execute Open Source apps only, right?) But I would agree that
until Linux can point to a really large base of apps that are simple to
install and use and satisfy the wide range of requirements people have, it
will have limited success in supplanting Windows.

This is an excellent example for anyone interested in producing an Ada
operating system. Its got to be "different". Its got to satisfy some
identifiable need. If it can't come out the door with a thousand apps on it,
then it needs to address some part of the market that doesn't need a
thousand apps. (How's that for getting back on topic? :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com


"Darren New" <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3CE15DC0.480B8FE8@san.rr.com...
>
> http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/01/fog0000000096.shtml
>

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Darren New]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> The only dispute I might have with the article is that just because there
> are weaknesses in the distributed, volunteer, open source development model
> that lots of apps can't or won't appear for Linux.

Agreed. I'd missed that conflation the first time I read it. Yeah, Linux
is a wash on the desktop right now because there aren't desktop apps for
it of the same quality as what you can get for Windows, but that doesn't
mean there wouldn't be closed-source apps if Linux was out there a lot.

And yes, the problem with the AdaOS is the lack of apps. The chicken-egg
thing. But if an OS is supposed to provide general services, it would
seem a "killer app" wouldn't need a new OS, yes? Unless no existing OS
was suitable for developing the app, at which point the app and the OS
become one?

-- 
Darren New 
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
** http://home.san.rr.com/dnew/DNResume.html **
** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ **

     My brain needs a "back" button so I can
         remember where I left my coffee mug.

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Marin David Condic]

"Darren New" <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3CE2D238.50F3EFD1@san.rr.com...
>
> Agreed. I'd missed that conflation the first time I read it. Yeah, Linux
> is a wash on the desktop right now because there aren't desktop apps for
> it of the same quality as what you can get for Windows, but that doesn't
> mean there wouldn't be closed-source apps if Linux was out there a lot.
>
I think the point was that even though Linux *does* have desktop apps, your
typical Windows user has some *specialized* need as well as the general
needs everyone has. Linux (in its current state) doesn't have the bazzillion
specialized apps out there - just some good general ones that make it fit
well with server applications at the moment. For example, I need a word
processor, a spreadsheet, an e-mail program *and* a cross-compilation
environment to a particular set-top box & OS. Linux can give me the word
processor, spreadsheet and the e-mail program. I can't get the
cross-compiler? No way can I use Linux.

Others would have similar needs, but not identical ones. This was where the
article was going with saying Linux has a problem in catching up with
Windows. I agree - to the point where Linux becomes of sufficient mass that
many major developers see some money to be made in porting their apps to it.


> And yes, the problem with the AdaOS is the lack of apps. The chicken-egg
> thing. But if an OS is supposed to provide general services, it would
> seem a "killer app" wouldn't need a new OS, yes? Unless no existing OS
> was suitable for developing the app, at which point the app and the OS
> become one?
>
The problem with AdaOS is *existence* not lack of apps! :-)

What I was suggesting is that AdaOS could take a lesson from that article
and be sure to (Lean close and pay attention because this *will* be on the
final exam! :-)

    a) Be Something Different!!!!!!!
and
    b) Target A Domain Where It Doesn't *NEED* A Bazillion Apps To Compete.

I've suggested that AdaOS have some ability to service realtime apps because
developers in that domain don't necessarily need to execute every app in the
world - just the one they are custom-developing. (Or that, and a handful of
other things that are running non-real-time.) However, other domains might
present similar opportunities - Servers being an example. (A server needs a
few apps running on it to get its job done, but it isn't something that
typically demands thousands of specialized apps to be useful to a large
number of people.) Or possibly target the users of computers for solving
large-scale math applications. They don't need to have Autocad or
Video-Toaster or Sim City running on the machine. (And they don't generally
need realtime - so a more Unixish/Windowsish approach to scheduling and
device driving can work)They're going to suck up nearly all the CPU
executing some custom math application they built, so they aren't going to
demand a bazillion apps. (They'll demand that the OS give them something
they don't get elsewhere - and probably that it at least "play nice with
others" in the network.)

See my point? If AdaOS targets an appropriate market that they can
realistically offer something to, it might find a following. If it finds a
following, it might grow to a sufficient user base to start attracting more
developers. Then you'll get your chickens and eggs thing solved.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com

Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On Tue, 14 May 2002 18:55:39 GMT, Darren New wrote:
> James Ross wrote:
>> My prediction is that Linux will *never* be consumer grade because of
>> lack of standards and ease of use. 
> 
> http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/01/fog0000000096.shtml

*yawn* Like they were saying about Linux on the server market earlier.

Preben

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On Thu, 02 May 2002 20:11:01 -0700, Robert R. Beaver wrote:
> Is it posible?
> IF so what are the steps to do so?

Do you mean that you have only FreeBSD and what to make Win32
executables. Or do you want to make programs for both FreeBSD and Win32.
If the latter (but I expect you ask the prior) usually a simple
recompile on the other target is enough, unless you do some spesific
hardware things.

Preben

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On Sat, 4 May 2002 16:20:45 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2002 20:11:01 -0700, Robert R. Beaver wrote:
>> Is it posible?
>> IF so what are the steps to do so?
> 
> Do you mean that you have only FreeBSD and what to make Win32
                                             ^^^^
                                             want
> executables. Or do you want to make programs for both FreeBSD and Win32.

Preben

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Robert R. Beaver]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2002 20:11:01 -0700, Robert R. Beaver wrote:
> 
>>Is it posible?
>>IF so what are the steps to do so?
>>
> 
> Do you mean that you have only FreeBSD and what to make Win32
> executables. Or do you want to make programs for both FreeBSD and Win32.
> If the latter (but I expect you ask the prior) usually a simple
> recompile on the other target is enough, unless you do some spesific
> hardware things.
> 
> Preben
> 

Yes, I run FreeBSD only. I would like to make my programs work on both.
I do not usualy write for win32. If I do it is done in tcl or forth.
By the way what is a good cross platform graphic library for Ada?

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On Sun, 05 May 2002 08:19:40 -0700, Robert R. Beaver wrote:
> Yes, I run FreeBSD only. I would like to make my programs work on both.
> I do not usualy write for win32. If I do it is done in tcl or forth.

Ok, but then you can get your program compiled more easily by doing it
on a win32 after you have delevoped it on FreeBSD.

> By the way what is a good cross platform graphic library for Ada?

GtkAda : http://libre.act-europe.fr/GtkAda/

Preben

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Robert Dewar]

"Robert R. Beaver" <beaveroregon@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3CD54D8C.3020302@qwest.net>...
> Yes, I run FreeBSD only. I would like to make my programs > work on both. I do not usualy write for win32.

Using a cross-compiler is an inappropriate and complex
way of addressing your problem. My advice is to completely
forget this approach it makes no sense.

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Robert R. Beaver]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> "Robert R. Beaver" <beaveroregon@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3CD54D8C.3020302@qwest.net>...
> 
>>Yes, I run FreeBSD only. I would like to make my programs > work on both. I do not usualy write for win32.
>>
> 
> Using a cross-compiler is an inappropriate and complex
> way of addressing your problem. My advice is to completely
> forget this approach it makes no sense.
> 

Can you suggest what would make sense?

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Preben Randhol]

On Sun, 05 May 2002 20:44:08 -0700, Robert R. Beaver wrote:
> Can you suggest what would make sense?

Compile your program on Win32 too. Or distribute the source so others
can. Why do you really want to generate the win32 exectuables on FreeBSD
?

Preben

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Florian Weimer]

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:

> "Robert R. Beaver" <beaveroregon@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3CD54D8C.3020302@qwest.net>...

>> Yes, I run FreeBSD only. I would like to make my programs work on
>> both. I do not usualy write for win32.
>
> Using a cross-compiler is an inappropriate and complex
> way of addressing your problem. My advice is to completely
> forget this approach it makes no sense.

Why do you think so?  I wouldn't use a cross compiler for Windows-only
projects, but I can imagine to use one in the context of a
multiplatform project.  Quite a few of the tools I like do not run at
all on Windows, or only after careful investigation and/or substantial
tweaking (decent editors accessible over SSH come to my mind as an
example).

My first and only Windows Ada project (and one of my few Ada programs
which are actually in production use, although this program features
are rather uniqe time bomb) was really tiny, and copying the source
files to a Windows box for compilation was an option, but I don't
think this works with larger projects.  Curiously enough, I started
with a C cross compiler on a Debian system, but I soon discovered that
the import libraries lacked several undocumented functions, that's why
I thought I could use Ada as well (I tried to use C first because I
assumed I wouldn't have to deal with manually importing functions from
DLLs).

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Robert Dewar]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote in message news:<87elgnzmj2.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>...
> dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> 
> > "Robert R. Beaver" <beaveroregon@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3CD54D8C.3020302@qwest.net>...
>  
> >> Yes, I run FreeBSD only. I would like to make my programs work on
> >> both. I do not usualy write for win32.
> >
> > Using a cross-compiler is an inappropriate and complex
> > way of addressing your problem. My advice is to completely
> > forget this approach it makes no sense.
> 
> Why do you think so? 

Because to test the program out, you have to set up a windows environment
anyway, you can't just assume it will work. Given that it is *far* easier
to simply recompile on windows, rather than mess with non-existent cross
compilers, especially if you are not familiar with such compilers (building
a cross *to* windows is especially complex).

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Stephen Leake]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> 
> > "Robert R. Beaver" <beaveroregon@qwest.net> wrote in message
> > news:<3CD54D8C.3020302@qwest.net>...
> 
> >> Yes, I run FreeBSD only. I would like to make my programs work on
> >> both. I do not usualy write for win32.
> >
> > Using a cross-compiler is an inappropriate and complex
> > way of addressing your problem. My advice is to completely
> > forget this approach it makes no sense.
> 
> Why do you think so?  I wouldn't use a cross compiler for Windows-only
> projects, but I can imagine to use one in the context of a
> multiplatform project.  Quite a few of the tools I like do not run at
> all on Windows, or only after careful investigation and/or substantial
> tweaking (decent editors accessible over SSH come to my mind as an
> example).

The Cygwin toolset (http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/) goes a long way
towards providing a "unix-like" environment on Windows. It provides
inetd and ssh; you can log into it remotely.

I don't believe there is an Emacs for Windows or Cygwin that uses an X
interface, so running Emacs on a Windows box with the display
elsewhere is not there yet (I bet people are working on it, though :).
But the other direction is possible; I do that all the time. And cvs
is there, to handle sharing the code between systems.

I build non-gui programs that run on Linux, Solaris, and Windows all
the time, and never use a cross-compiler. CVS, ssh, gnu tools, and
Emacs on all boxes, with Windows as the main X-server, works well for
me.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?

[Darren New]

Stephen Leake wrote:
> I don't believe there is an Emacs for Windows or Cygwin that uses an X
> interface, so running Emacs on a Windows box with the display
> elsewhere is not there yet (I bet people are working on it, though :).

VNC is your friend.

-- 
Darren New 
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
   The 90/10 rule of toothpaste: the last 10% of 
         the tube lasts as long as the first 90%.