[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Standalone windows install: why?

From: Doug Stewart
Subject: Re: Standalone windows install: why?
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 16:42:30 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

I meant to send it to the list.
I'm not sure. I got to the point were I didn't have the energy to try and solve problems on their home computers, so I just told them to install Andys ver. I tried octave-2.1.64-inst.exe today on my desk computer -wXP. It gave allot of "no such file" and no such directory messages., but it still ran until I tried to plot some data, then could not make a temp file for the pipe. The reason was that it was looking for a c:tmp but there was no tmp directory. This is not a criticism or complaint I am just pointing out that the problems might be very small, and can be fixed by anyone who knows these things, but for the new breed of windows students these are major problems.

I will do more testing next week at work.
Doug Stewart

John W. Eaton wrote:

Please, tell the mailing list.

Is it just that Andy's binary is easier to install, or that the
version of Octave it installs works differently when you run it?


On 31-Mar-2005, Doug Stewart <address@hidden> wrote:

| No it is not a religious thing. I also get my students to use Octave | ever year and every time when they complain, I ask them if they | installed Andy Adlers ver. and they say no. Then I get them to install | his ver and all is OK again. As far as I know his ver. is the only one | that really works for 'windows using' students. | | The problem as I see it is that if you know nothing about dos or Linux | then most of the Linux ports are a mystery. | I wish that Andy would put together a newer ver. but I know this is a | lot to ask of him. | | PS I did try one time to use his instructions and do it myself. I got | octave to compile but then to make a complete user friendly windows | vers. was beyond me. | | | Doug Stewart | | | John W. Eaton wrote: | | >On 31-Mar-2005, Paul Thomas <address@hidden> wrote:
| >
| >| If I could offer a couple of comments on this:
| >| | >| In spite of the benefits of the Cygwin environment, folk do appear to prefer | >| straight Windows installs.
| >
| >Is this a religious thing?  What if they don't know that they are
| >installing Cygwin?
| >
| >If I install some proprietary binary only commericial software for
| >Windows, it may come with any number of add-on libraries and support
| >programs that are hidden behind the scenes.  Why is that any different
| >than having a set of POSIX compatibility libraries and support
| >programs (i.e., Cygwin) hidden behind the scenes?
| >
| >| Since gcc-4.x binaries have been available for | >| Windows, the demand for my regular Cygwin snapshots has declined to a | >| trickle.
| >
| >Do you mean binaries of gcc that do not require Cygwin to run?
| >
| >jwe
| >
| >
| >
| >-------------------------------------------------------------
| >Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
| >
| >Octave's home on the web:
| >How to fund new projects:
| >Subscription information:
| >-------------------------------------------------------------
| >
| > | >

Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:
How to fund new projects:
Subscription information:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]