 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.10.2017 um 18:54 schrieb jr:
> hi,
>
> On 15/10/2017 17:13, clipka wrote:
>> The subsystem is effectively an Ubuntu system, and is confirmed ok for
>> compiling and running POV-Ray, so it should be good enough for
>> "nocomment" as well.
>
> does it have flex(1) installed?
I don't get anything for "man flex", so apparently it's not installed,
but "apt list flex" lists "flex/xenial 2.6.0-11 amd64", so apparently
it's available.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 15/10/2017 18:20, clipka wrote:
> Am 15.10.2017 um 18:54 schrieb jr:
>> does it have flex(1) installed?
> I don't get anything for "man flex", so apparently it's not installed,
> but "apt list flex" lists "flex/xenial 2.6.0-11 amd64", so apparently
> it's available.
thanks.
> Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
> for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
> official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
> beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
work.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> I don't get anything for "man flex", so apparently it's not installed,
You should work out more. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/10/2017 22:06, jr wrote:
>
> I think cygwin has strip(1) installed, you can run
>
> $ strip -s nocomment.exe
>
> without impairing functionality, and hopefully the respective sizes will
> compare better. (compiling w/out optimisation options too would leave
> it larger)
>
Attached is the shrunken file. 16k
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nocomment.zip' (7 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 15/10/2017 19:14, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/10/2017 22:06, jr wrote:
>> $ strip -s nocomment.exe
> Attached is the shrunken file. 16k
phew. :-) thanks.
and 'tga2df3_2'? ~9.5K here.
regards ,jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
> > for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
> > official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
> > beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
>
> given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
> working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
> build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
> work.
>
> regards, jr.
May do, provided I find the time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/10/2017 11:05, clipka wrote:
> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
>>> for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
>>> official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
>>> beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
>> given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
>> working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
>> build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
>> work.
> May do, provided I find the time.
heh. here's what I read:
> ... provided I find the time.
I used to run a Xubuntu box for a while (back in the Pentium age) and
know /exactly/ what you mean. apt-getting flex, getting 'nocomment'
from the server, typing make would have taken me, uh, I don't know, two
and a half minutes? I mean, who in today's world has that much time on
their hands?
> May do, ...
'may' to me means "hadn't given it any thought yet", understandable
since the utilities likely aren't of any interest to you.
however, I cannot fathom why you're so keen to tell about the wonderful
"Windows subsystem for Linux" -- twice -- with all the "might"s and
"should"s, when not even yourself is using it for the purpose you
suggest. is that a "Windows thing"?
regards, (perplexed) jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.10.2017 um 16:56 schrieb jr:
> On 16/10/2017 11:05, clipka wrote:
>> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
>>>> for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
>>>> official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
>>>> beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
>>> given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
>>> working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
>>> build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
>>> work.
>> May do, provided I find the time.
>
> heh. here's what I read:
>
>> ... provided I find the time.
>
> I used to run a Xubuntu box for a while (back in the Pentium age) and
> know /exactly/ what you mean. apt-getting flex, getting 'nocomment'
> from the server, typing make would have taken me, uh, I don't know, two
> and a half minutes? I mean, who in today's world has that much time on
> their hands?
You're probably right in that once I get around to it, it'll be a matter
of minutes. (Presuming everything goes right.) Probably less time than
it takes me to write this post.
I'm not too good at task switching though. I need to find some moment to
sit back, take a deep breath, do all the little but numerous steps to
prepare for the deed (including getting a clear mental image of what
this task actually involves), and then actually try the compilation.
>> May do, ...
>
> 'may' to me means "hadn't given it any thought yet", understandable
> since the utilities likely aren't of any interest to you.
> however, I cannot fathom why you're so keen to tell about the wonderful
> "Windows subsystem for Linux" -- twice -- with all the "might"s and
> "should"s, when not even yourself is using it for the purpose you
> suggest. is that a "Windows thing"?
Just my personal habit of letting others know stuff I found out about
the world, I guess.
Here's an alternative to cygwin (which used to put me off whenever I
looked at it) & co. to run stuff on Windows, it's quite new and hasn't
been mentioned yet (in this thread about nocomment), I have /some/
experience with it (using it occasionally to build and test POV-Ray for
Linux) and find it darn easy to use --- so why shouldn't I let folks
know that this route /exists/?
It's like, say, overhearing a conversation among sightseeing tourists
pondering how to cross the Rhine river, and discussing which bridge to
take, while I happen to know that there's also a ferry nearby -- why
shouldn't I mention it to them as an alternative? Not that I've ever
taken it myself, but they may still enjoy it; nor do I know /exactly/
where the landing is situated, but they may still be able to find it
themselves once they're aware of its existence. And if they're not
interested in taking a ferry, they're perfectly free to politely decline
the suggestion.
(If on the other hand they start complaining how I even dare suggest
such a thing without trying it out for them first and/or giving them
fully detailed directions, I'd consider that a bit inappropriate.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I'm not too good at task switching though. I need to find some moment to
> sit back, take a deep breath, do all the little but numerous steps to
> prepare for the deed (including getting a clear mental image of what
> this task actually involves), and then actually try the compilation.
https://georgestocker.com/2014/04/15/how-to-destroy-programmer-productivity/
I love this graph.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 16/10/2017 16:47, clipka wrote:
> Am 16.10.2017 um 16:56 schrieb jr:
>> On 16/10/2017 11:05, clipka wrote:
>>> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>>> Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
>>>>> for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
>>>>> official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
>>>>> beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
>>>> given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
>>>> working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
>>>> build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
>>>> work.
>>> May do, provided I find the time.
>> heh. here's what I read:
>>> ... provided I find the time.
>> I used to run a Xubuntu box for a while (back in the Pentium age) and
>> know /exactly/ what you mean. apt-getting flex, getting 'nocomment'
>> from the server, typing make would have taken me, uh, I don't know, two
>> and a half minutes? I mean, who in today's world has that much time on
>> their hands?
> You're probably right in that once I get around to it, it'll be a matter
> of minutes. (Presuming everything goes right.) Probably less time than
> it takes me to write this post.
> I'm not too good at task switching though. I need to find some moment to
> sit back, take a deep breath, do all the little but numerous steps to
> prepare for the deed (including getting a clear mental image of what
> this task actually involves), and then actually try the compilation.
sure, getting well prepared does make all the difference.
>>> May do, ...
>> 'may' to me means "hadn't given it any thought yet", understandable
>> since the utilities likely aren't of any interest to you.
>> however, I cannot fathom why you're so keen to tell about the wonderful
>> "Windows subsystem for Linux" -- twice -- with all the "might"s and
>> "should"s, when not even yourself is using it for the purpose you
>> suggest. is that a "Windows thing"?
> Just my personal habit of letting others know stuff I found out about
> the world, I guess.
> Here's an alternative to cygwin (which used to put me off whenever I
> looked at it) & co. to run stuff on Windows, it's quite new and hasn't
> been mentioned yet (in this thread about nocomment), I have /some/
> experience with it (using it occasionally to build and test POV-Ray for
> Linux) and find it darn easy to use --- so why shouldn't I let folks
> know that this route /exists/?
(I hope) I'm not saying that alternatives oughtn't get mentioned, my
point was/is that such information is relevant ("helpful") only if this
route exists *and* it is a viable route.
> It's like, say, overhearing a conversation among sightseeing tourists
> pondering how to cross the Rhine river, and discussing which bridge to
> take, while I happen to know that there's also a ferry nearby -- why
> shouldn't I mention it to them as an alternative? Not that I've ever
> taken it myself, but they may still enjoy it; nor do I know /exactly/
> where the landing is situated, but they may still be able to find it
> themselves once they're aware of its existence. And if they're not
> interested in taking a ferry, they're perfectly free to politely decline
> the suggestion.
yeah well, it seems our ideas of "helpfulness" do differ somewhat.
using that example, so we (you + I) stand by the river, two bridges
visible in the distance, and we're discussing how to cross.
now a person approaches and tells us that: (a) there's a ferry nearby
though I do not know where exactly, and (b) by the way I've never
actually used it, only similar ferries elsewhere, would, I suggest, not
have "illuminated" us in our "predicament", nor would that person have
inspired my confidence. but, as always, YMMV.
> (If on the other hand they start complaining how I even dare suggest
> such a thing without trying it out for them first and/or giving them
> fully detailed directions, I'd consider that a bit inappropriate.)
no no, I'm quite comfortable with free speech.
jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
