Dev-C++ compiling problem in Vista

[jacob navia]

Kenny McCormack wrote:



Yes, Slackware obviously.


Deplorable indeed. I wonder why everyone doesn't build their own Linux
system like Gerard Beekmans. That's how real hackers do it!

Do you have a recommendation? (URL, best way to download it, etc?)
thanks

 

[santosh]

Do you have a recommendation? (URL, best way to download it, etc?)
thanks

Sure:

<http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/>

but I doubt you'll like this when Ubuntu is apparently too difficult for
you.

 

[jacob navia]

Sure:

<http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/>

but I doubt you'll like this when Ubuntu is apparently too difficult for
you.

Of course it is not "difficult", and I have been doing Unix since
1987... I can solve all those problems if I wanted to, but the point
is that now it just bores me, still in 2008 fiddling around with the
X config files, chasing drivers, installing this and that, fixing the
bugs...

What bothers me more is that the old versions of linux did not have
this kind of problems that often, and that now the point is not
to make a simpler system for everyone, but just to make server
side software that pleases the people that finance linux (IBM,
RedHat, and some others) but doesn't care at all of the normal user.

Microsoft software is much more user friendly not because they
have a BIG BUDGET, but because they care about the end user a
bit more... Unix has this problematic attitude of relying in the
"systems administrator", and just being unfriendly for no reason.

Personally I have tried to make a system that it is easy to use.
lcc-win tries (not always with success) to be easy to use, easy to
install, without adding features without need.

Microsoft had a different attitude towards the end user as the unix
people. Unix was for the "higher ups"... Microsoft choose to cater
the end user...

It was a strategic mistake from the Unix guys, and linux has taken that
wrong tradition, that is why it bothers me.

I thought that they would try to make what Steve jobs did: make
unix user friendly.

No, they choose to follow the old unix path: just suppose there is
a "system administrator" and do not care about the end user.

And that is why linux doesn't get any more market share.

The reaction from many people here is so telling:

"You screwed your installation". Always the fault of badly designed
software is in the end user!

I downloaded the ubuntu software, burned it into a DVD and followed
the instructions. Nothing else.

Gnome is not installed by default. Sorry. Nor KDE, nor nothing.

When it reboots after the first installation it shows you a
"login"
prompt, that is all. You have to call "aptitude" to install the
rest.

And after a while I know "aptitude", its quirks, etc.

But would my wife know how to use that?

And sorry, mp3 are not recognized by default because mp3 is NOT
an open format for music. OGG is, but mp3 is not. And the debian
based Ubuntu has the same "political" line of boycotting the formats
that are propietary or somehow not to the latest taste of GNU;

 

[apaticul]

(e-mail address removed) wrote, On 03/05/08 11:57:



So you are not even doing C but C++ instead.

Yeah, I know, I am still trying to figure out a way to save the file
in ".c" rather than
".cpp" format.
It seems that its saved automatically in ".cpp" format.

Ask in the right place and it won't take months of waiting or swearing.

I know what you mean; if I would ask in a place that is not active,
by the time I would get eventually and answer that would be helpful,
it may
be too late.
I am not aware of other active groups besides this one where my
question would have
a chance to get answered by people that have meet these types of
problems before.

 

[apaticul]

A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.

I would eventually downgrade it to win xp but vista seems to have a
better wireless
software than my xp computer that I use.

When I try to connect my wireless with vista it does it automatically
while with
xp it may fail sometimes.
I am not a programmer myself, pretty obviously I just want to learn
these things
for myself, but I am sure there must be other folks out there trying
to configure the same
problems as in this topic

 

[Flash Gordon]

I know what you mean; if I would ask in a place that is not active,
by the time I would get eventually and answer that would be helpful,
it may
be too late.
I am not aware of other active groups besides this one where my
question would have
a chance to get answered by people that have meet these types of
problems before.

For Visual Studio there are groups starting with microsoft that are
active (I can see recent answers to questions in
microsoft.public.vc.ide_general and microsoft.public.vstudio.*). For
Dev-C++ there are mailing lists. Oh, and since MS point people with MSDN
subscriptions at the microsoft.public.* hierarchy and guarantee that
subscribers to MSDN will get an answer next business day you can be
certain that there are some real experts on the MS tools hanging around
in the groups.

These places are not hard to find.

 

[santosh]

santosh wrote: [ ... ]
Deplorable indeed. I wonder why everyone doesn't build their own
Linux system like Gerard Beekmans. That's how real hackers do it!

Do you have a recommendation? (URL, best way to download it, etc?)
thanks

Sure:

<http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/>

but I doubt you'll like this when Ubuntu is apparently too difficult
for you.

Of course it is not "difficult", and I have been doing Unix since
1987... I can solve all those problems if I wanted to, but the point
is that now it just bores me, still in 2008 fiddling around with the
X config files, chasing drivers, installing this and that, fixing the
bugs...

What bothers me more is that the old versions of linux did not have
this kind of problems that often, and that now the point is not
to make a simpler system for everyone, but just to make server
side software that pleases the people that finance linux (IBM,
RedHat, and some others) but doesn't care at all of the normal user.

Try distributions like PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, CentOS, Ubuntu etc. They are
aimed at ordinary users for the desktop. They should be as easy to use
as Windows.

Microsoft software is much more user friendly not because they
have a BIG BUDGET, but because they care about the end user a
bit more... Unix has this problematic attitude of relying in the
"systems administrator", and just being unfriendly for no reason.

What you call problematic has saved Unix from the innumerable security
holes and exploits that plague Windows due to the latter failure to
strongly separate privileges (until 2000 appeared).

Systems like OpenBSD are even more secure by default.

Personally I have tried to make a system that it is easy to use.
lcc-win tries (not always with success) to be easy to use, easy to
install, without adding features without need.

Easy to use for newbies certainly. But rather frustrating for advanced
programmers that appreciate the wealth of command-line options and
tunable parameters that are supported by compilers like gcc, Intel C++
etc.

Microsoft had a different attitude towards the end user as the unix
people. Unix was for the "higher ups"... Microsoft choose to cater
the end user...

Yes. They realised the great potential of producing a GUI based system
that "Just Worked" for the then exploding PC market and the incipient
WWW.

Remember that Unix's origins are far earlier. During the 70s GUIs were
really rare and there was no concept of WWW, and non-technical users
using computers.

That's why Unix assumes are certain amount of technical knowledge and
aptitude for hacking around. It great for those who know (or have
learned) and love doing this, but admittedly hostile towards the
average Jane user. But recent Linux distros have covered a lot of
ground towards user-friendliness.

Soon they will be everybit as user-friendly as any Windows, and in
addition benefit from the advantages of being open source and secure by
default.

It was a strategic mistake from the Unix guys, and linux has taken
that wrong tradition, that is why it bothers me.

No. It was simply a different direction, different focus and priorities.
We don't want homogenisation and uniformity beyond where it is really
needed. In general, diversity is better.

I thought that they would try to make what Steve jobs did: make
unix user friendly.

Well, Steve Jobs did do that. Why should everyone else ape him or Bill?

No, they choose to follow the old unix path: just suppose there is
a "system administrator" and do not care about the end user.

You are not appreciating the constraints of multi-user systems. All
modern Windows too have an Administrator account. In fact one
consistent negative criticism of Vista is that it prompts the user
annoyingly frequently for granting privileges to processes or running
programs.

And that is why linux doesn't get any more market share.

No. The reason that Linux doesn't get more market share is because the
very vast majority of PC sold come bundled with Windows and it proves
adequate for most purposes for most users. The majority of computer
users don't know and don't care about things like system details,
programming, security, open source etc. They just switch on their
computer, work on Word and Excel, check mail, play Minesweeper and
switch off.

In addition most organisations demand Windows knowledge even if a
particular task is doable with other systems (often even better with
those other systems), accept only Word documents etc. Also uptil
recently most hardware devices were tailored towards Windows and there
were poor or no drivers for Linux. Now Linux actually has more drivers
and less driver issues than Windows Vista.

The big advantage of Microsoft is monopolisation of markets and
mindshare, in which they are a practised hand. Making gains in such a
situation is always difficult, not only for open source but even
commercial systems like say Apple or OS/2.

The reaction from many people here is so telling:

"You screwed your installation". Always the fault of badly designed
software is in the end user!

I downloaded the ubuntu software, burned it into a DVD and followed
the instructions. Nothing else.

Gnome is not installed by default. Sorry. Nor KDE, nor nothing.

Strange. Unless you specifically deselect it, X and GNOME are installed
automatically. Maybe you downloaded the server version of Ubuntu?

When it reboots after the first installation it shows you a
"login" prompt, that is all. You have to call "aptitude" to install
the rest.

And many of the programs you'll need are on the install CD itself. In
any case it's a matter of firing up your friendly package manager,
selecting what you want and hitting APPLY.

How is this any different from scouring the Web, downloading .msi
or .exe files and installing them. And official repositories provide
tested, certified versions of most software. With Windows you'll just
have to trust the site you download from.

Remember, a typical Linux install provides a complete desktop
environment. Almost all the functionality you want is instantly
available. With Windows a default install provides very little
utilities, no development s/w, very little PIM s/w, very little games,
no office or DTP s/w, no selection of editors, no scientific s/w, no
nothing.

And after a while I know "aptitude", its quirks, etc.

But would my wife know how to use that?

Learning to fully use something like Vista and all the additional
software that you download from the Net is also not a simple task.
Computing is not simple, period.

And sorry, mp3 are not recognized by default because mp3 is NOT
an open format for music. OGG is, but mp3 is not. And the debian
based Ubuntu has the same "political" line of boycotting the formats
that are propietary or somehow not to the latest taste of GNU;

No it's more subtle. They will have to pay royalties to the Fraunhofer
Institute. Systems like Windows, Apple, Linspire, PCLinuxOS etc., do
this for their users (because their s/w is sold, not free as in beer).
Free (as in beer) distributions can't do this (at least it's not very
feasible). That's why you must manually install MP3 codecs.

 

[Barry Schwarz]

Yeah, I know, I am still trying to figure out a way to save the file
in ".c" rather than
".cpp" format.
It seems that its saved automatically in ".cpp" format.

Since most compilers store these as standard text files, why not just
rename it? Does you system really have different internal formats for
..c and .cpp files? I use MS VC (not the 2008 version) and all my
files are clear text.


Remove del for email

 

[Bill Buckels]

I'll never EVER use Vista. Ever.

My current amployer is a Microsoft Gold Partner. However, we develop
in Linux or Windows or for that matter any platform that our clients
pay us to. We consultants may sleep around alot, but we do make loads
of money and get lots of vacation time and even time to run our own
businesses doing real things like commercial fishing which at my age
is better for my health than sitting on my rear end writing code 24/7.

One of my guys back several companies ago was the president of the
local linux users group and would ram GNU up my bum every chance he
got as he collected his paycheque after writing Windows code in Visual
Basic all week. I on the other hand would write Windows and Unix code
in C all week. Which just goes to show that you can have your cake and
eat it too. Or was it cake he was eating? He was much more principled
than I, since I was Manager of Product Devlopment and could be
forgiven for beiong a whore. But he could be forgiven too because he
had to eat and had a family to feed.

Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point. I understand it but
don't get it. This isn't a religion is it? VISTA is so different than
any of the other cr*p that we all know and love.

Bill

 

[jacob navia]

Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]

Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.

Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us. Nobody will buy anything, linux distros
will make a war on you, etc. Software developers should be like
the ideal GNU developer: work for free for endless hours, and
work as pizza delivery man to feed your family.

 

[Ian Collins]

Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]

Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.

Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.

Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.

 

[jacob navia]

Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]

Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.

Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.

Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.

They do not sell any software under linux. They sell
a development system with linux, what is completely another
thing.

 

[Ian Collins]

Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.

Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.

They do not sell any software under linux. They sell
a development system with linux, what is completely another
thing.

No, the likes of Green Hills sell compilers and tools that run on Linux
(as well as Solaris and windows). I know, I paid them $60K + support in
my last job!

 

[jacob navia]

jacob navia wrote:
Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.
Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.

They do not sell any software under linux. They sell
a development system with linux, what is completely another
thing.

No, the likes of Green Hills sell compilers and tools that run on Linux
(as well as Solaris and windows). I know, I paid them $60K + support in
my last job!

But their compilers are cross compilers for the embedded system
they are supporting!

This is just playing with words. They do not sell any software for
linux. Their software runs under linux, as I said.

Nobody can sell any development software FOR LINUX. That's why there
isn't any decent IDE or debugger under linux. Nobody wants to pay for
them.

(And please do not start with a long list of crappy IDEs because
IDEs that are able to call "make" and call gdb are there by the
thousands. None will support "go to definition", real debugging
etc. I tested dozens of them when I had to use linux.

 

[Ian Collins]

Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.
Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.

They do not sell any software under linux. They sell
a development system with linux, what is completely another
thing.

No, the likes of Green Hills sell compilers and tools that run on Linux
(as well as Solaris and windows). I know, I paid them $60K + support in
my last job!

But their compilers are cross compilers for the embedded system
they are supporting!

They also have native compilers, but I see your point. I wonder how
many compilers Intel sell?

(And please do not start with a long list of crappy IDEs because
IDEs that are able to call "make" and call gdb are there by the
thousands. None will support "go to definition", real debugging
etc. I tested dozens of them when I had to use linux.

I don't think Eclipse of NetBeans (neither tied to one platform) can be
described as crappy.

 

[Nick Keighley]

You might consider trying
Jacob Navia's free compiler and IDE

I believe it is only free for non-commercial use

 

[jacob navia]

jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.
Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.

They do not sell any software under linux. They sell
a development system with linux, what is completely another
thing.

No, the likes of Green Hills sell compilers and tools that run on Linux
(as well as Solaris and windows). I know, I paid them $60K + support in
my last job!

But their compilers are cross compilers for the embedded system
they are supporting!

They also have native compilers, but I see your point. I wonder how
many compilers Intel sell?

(And please do not start with a long list of crappy IDEs because
IDEs that are able to call "make" and call gdb are there by the
thousands. None will support "go to definition", real debugging
etc. I tested dozens of them when I had to use linux.

I don't think Eclipse of NetBeans (neither tied to one platform) can be
described as crappy.

Strange, I thought both were free... How much does Eclipse cost?

What is the selling price of "NetBeans"?

I think you just confirm what I said. No software can be sold under
linux.

As IDEs goes, both of those software package are usable, of course,
since they have SUN/IBM behind them, that poured millions of
dollars into their development.

And both of them never go into 20% of what visual studio does.

Eclipse just calls gdb, and is happy with it

 

[Ian Collins]

Strange, I thought both were free... How much does Eclipse cost?

What is the selling price of "NetBeans"?

Where did I say they had a cost? If you look at what I quoted, it's
pretty clear which comment I was replying to.

And both of them never go into 20% of what visual studio does.

Ah, the good old 80-20 rule come into play there, both have been
developed by their respective communities to do what their users want
them to do.

Eclipse just calls gdb, and is happy with it

NetBeans is fully integrated with Sun Studio (C, C++, Java and Fortran).

 

[Nick Keighley]

Soon [Linux distributuions] will be everybit as user-friendly as
any Windows [...]

<laughter>

 

[jacob navia]

I believe it is only free for non-commercial use

Yes and so what?
It can be bought if you want to develop a commercial product with it.
But for the OP and all the people that want an IDE, the binaries
are free.