On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:52:20 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> If it's Linux, then this never, ever, under any circumstances, works.
>>> It's /supposed/ to work; they provide Linux-compatible packages. They
>>> just don't /work/.
>>
>> No, it would be accurate for you to say that you've never gotten it to
>> work.
> 
> OK, fair enough. But I doubt I'm the only person having this trouble.

That doesn't translate to "nobody can get it to work".

> What? What do you mean no kernel headers? OK, let me go install those.
> What do you mean they "don't match" the running kernel? I got them from
> the right repo... OK, well, proceed anyway. What? GCC doesn't match the
> version used to build the kernel? How do you even /know/ that?? And, uh,
> why is the version you want not even listed as an option in any repo for
> any release of this distro?

They build against some specific releases and have a generic installer 
for the rest.

It seems  you found one that's not common and not compatible.  It 
happens.  I've also seen the incorrect GCC version error (how do they 
determine that?  Perhaps, just maybe, there's a "compiled with gcc 
version x" bit in the header so that can be determined when trying to 
figure out issues.  You know, some sort of data storage that indicates 
how it was built).  There's an override option for that.

That also doesn't translate to "nobody can get it to work".

> IIRC, I did get this stuff to actually compile and install once. But
> after completing the install and rebooting the guest as requested, the
> software /still/ didn't actually work. (Presumably there's some way
> somewhere of determining whether it's even running, but I don't know
> what that is.)

Hmmm.  So, you say it doesn't work, but you don't know if it was 
running.  So how do you know it didn't work?

> In other news, my new employer is apparently paying for me to get Linux
> Professional Institute Certified...

That's handy/convenient.  :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message