flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Bochs wont open .bxrc on external drive.

Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
DustWolf wrote:
make is actually a program you need installed that interprets the makefile

Do you mean some GNU/Linux distros don't have make by default?


DustWolf wrote:
Technically makefiles are less flexible than bash scripts (in terms of scripting) and aren't really made for building from FASM (made to work with C object files and can skip over those which are already compiled)

The obj thing is true, but IMO, make works perfectly for anything and makes everything more simple. I personally use it all the time with fasm. I like to add a make install and a make clean (for when I link asm code with libraries).


DustWolf wrote:
root & FASM & syscalls is even more Twisted Evil. Wink

And when you recursively delete half of your system (a *very* common dumb mistake) or run something that causes havoc, well, I guess you really deserve what's happening to you. Twisted Evil^10
Post 04 Jan 2010, 23:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
I know that make is a program, I just don't know what to pass as an arg so that it installs the program. I've tried every file named Makefile(or similar variant) in the rpm and it doesn't work.
Post 04 Jan 2010, 23:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Hmm, "it doesn't work" is quite vague.

Open the makefile and look inside for possible options.

Also, applications usually come with install/readme files explaining the setup and configuration procedures. You could also check the official website.
Post 04 Jan 2010, 23:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
ManOfSteel wrote:
Do you mean some GNU/Linux distros don't have make by default?


Some distros like Ubuntu or SUSE do not come with compilers (in Ubuntu it's packaged in "build-essential" package which contains everything you need for compiling anyway). Since Slackware only contains what you put into it I assumed it was possible it didn't have one.

Quote:
The obj thing is true, but IMO, make works perfectly for anything and makes everything more simple. I personally use it all the time with fasm. I like to add a make install and a make clean (for when I link asm code with libraries).


Me too. Smile After I moved to Linux and there was no more FASMW with it's F9, Make was the obvious choice. Hence why I am recommending it here.

Quote:
DustWolf wrote:
root & FASM & syscalls is even more Twisted Evil. Wink

And when you recursively delete half of your system (a *very* common dumb mistake) or run something that causes havoc, well, I guess you really deserve what's happening to you. Twisted Evil^10


Very Happy Indeed.

That's why I always (over)use segments, put all my filenames involved in file-destructive syscalls in un-writeable segments, etc. That way, if something goes wrong, it just segfaults instead of deleting something I need!

Learning to use a CVS and frequently commiting all your code to another machine helps as well.

But Hardware I/O is just such a bother without root (I know I could drop privileges after obtaining I/O rights, but that's just added complexity). Wink

LP,
Jure


Last edited by DustWolf on 05 Jan 2010, 00:29; edited 1 time in total
Post 05 Jan 2010, 00:09
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Tyler wrote:
I know that make is a program, I just don't know what to pass as an arg so that it installs the program. I've tried every file named Makefile(or similar variant) in the rpm and it doesn't work.


I still suspect you are using it wrong. Make is a program that parses the makefile, which basically contains a sequence of Bash commands. Meaning it uses the makefile in the folder where you ran it.

The idea is you make a makefile for your project (put everything you need to do frequently into it, as to make assembling and testing your code a piece of cake). The commonly used make rules (aka the words you put right after "$ make") are, as mentioned "all" for compiling the binaries, "install" for putting the binaries into the system folders and "clean" for deleting them out of there. This is what other people will expect if you release your binary to other people.

But remember, you are supposed to write your own makefile! Here is mine, for my project:
http://bitbucket.org/dustwolf/microkernel/src/tip/makefile
...it won't work out of the box for you, but if you write your own following a similar syntax (but filling in your filenames, etc), it should. Keep in mind that the spacing is important. Also calling the rules something other than what you call your files should also prove helpful in overcoming the "nothing to be done" issue. Also, keep your rules one-word.

Note that make will stop the script if a command you used fails. This feature prevents things from going horribly wrong and is very convenient. If you want make to ignore an error with a certain command put a "-" in front (for example with a "clean" rule you may want to delete some files if they exist or not, in that case you use "-rm filename").

Okay it has it's quirks, but it's an awesome tool once you got a makefile.

LP,
Jure
Post 05 Jan 2010, 00:25
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
See this is where the Linux or OSS culture "sucks" with make files and crap like that. Why not just use a shell script. And why can't you just select it and double-click on it to execute instead of typing "make"?

That and the so-many library dependencies -- look at inkscape for freak's sake! 40MB and most of it are .dlls beginning with "lib" Rolling Eyes

and some people wonder why people would use Wine under Linux?
Post 05 Jan 2010, 16:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
Borsuc wrote:
See this is where the Linux or OSS culture "sucks" with make files and crap like that.


Borsuc, this is not the "Linux sucks" thread. You have mis-posted.

Quote:
Why not just use a shell script. And why can't you just select it and double-click on it to execute instead of typing "make"?


You can doubleclick the makefile, instead of typing "make". And you can use a shell script if you prefer. Very Happy

But developers typically type "make" instead.

Quote:
That and the so-many library dependencies -- look at inkscape for freak's sake! 40MB and most of it are .dlls beginning with "lib" Rolling Eyes


You can recompile your distro all libraries linked statically and included in the binaries if you prefer. ^^

Usually though, it's better to have them floating around. In case more than one thing uses the same ones. Many things do, because they can.

Quote:
and some people wonder why people would use Wine under Linux?


Because none of the Windows apps are standards compliant enough to be ported to any other OS?

LP,
Jure
Post 05 Jan 2010, 20:24
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
Borsuc wrote:
See this is where the Linux or OSS culture "sucks" with make files and crap like that.

makefiles are programming "tools" you use when you're compiling from source duh. What exactly sucks in that? And in the end, it's all about make, make install and make clean, and *maybe* a few other things if you need/want more.
You don't want make and makefiles, I guess. If you're not the actual developer but a user, is there anyone armed with a knife, rifle or ICBM preventing you from installing binary packages?

BTW, building from source (as a user) let's you customize the end product, and remove what you don't need or what may be incompatible with something you have. This is always good because it'll ensure your programs are fine-tuned and work as they should, and it'll sometimes make the download and installed application smaller.


Borsuc wrote:
Why not just use a shell script.

And the huge difference, then, would be ____?
For the sake of the argument, when I want to install FreeBSD I can extract the entire system using 2 Almquist shell scripts and a few shell commands. And to continue the argument, every application can be installed using one or another standardized shell command, depending on whether you're installing a binary version or building from source.


Borsuc wrote:
And why can't you just select it and double-click on it to execute instead of typing "make"?

Actually there are package managers where you can click all you want. And there are entirely point-and-click BSD-based systems and GNU/Linux distros.

On those systems where you don't already have a GUI, how can you *install the GUI*? By double-clicking the shell maybe? The shell is the common denominator here. And many people like it that way.
But hopefully (yessss!!!) there are graphical alternative for systems that ship "full option".

Some people prefer GUI, some people prefer CLI, and they choose the system they like most depending on that. Why all the fuss, really?


Borsuc wrote:
the so-many library dependencies -- look at inkscape for freak's sake! 40MB and most of it are .dlls beginning with "lib" Rolling Eyes

And? A sh*tload of Windows programs require the "Visual C++ Redistributable", or even better (size-wise), the ".NET framework", and Dog knows what else. These are many dozens of DLLs and stuff filling the entire system hierarchy. What was your point again?

I recently upgraded my systems to release 8.0. The complete upgrade of both the base system and applications was done through my crappy connection in one night (started at 10PM, finished around 1AM, including idle time due to connection loss). My entire system is formed of a little more than 300 applications/dependencies which are 250MB big.
And note that FreeBSD is very different from GNU/Linux distros in that the system is completely separate from the third-party applications and therefore requires the installation of many more third-party libraries.


Borsuc wrote:
and some people wonder why people would use Wine under Linux?

Well AFAIK *most* people use Wine for games because, you know, most popular games are made for Windows.

I personally never ran anything other than Microsoft Office.
Not because I particularly like it (or the whole concept of "WYSIWYG" office suites), but because some people *want* Microsoft Office documents from you for any type of document you must share with them, since it's the "standard".
Otherwise I'd ditch Office and Wine. And good *BEEP* riddance!

Actually the result in OpenOffice may sometimes look nicer and more attractive if you use it to the full (e.g. visual effects in PowerPoint/Impress), but then Microsoft Office has trouble understanding the aesthetic changes you made, even though OpenOffice OTOH opens all the Microsoft Office documents I have as they should be and how they should look. As I said: "standard".
Post 05 Jan 2010, 20:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
ManOfSteel wrote:
makefiles are programming "tools" you use when you're compiling from source duh. What exactly sucks in that?
too many tools which do the same job. That is NOT a good thing. That's what "sucks" in it.

ManOfSteel wrote:
If you're not the actual developer but a user, is there anyone armed with a knife, rifle or ICBM preventing you from installing binary packages?
yeah because some apps only come with source, like Dr.Queue.

ManOfSteel wrote:
And the huge difference, then, would be ____?
SIMPLICITY!
That's what lacks in Linux. You already have a shell but you don't wanna use it -- instead, use a new program called "make" for makefiles. That's why Linux is so noob friendly, redundant things are good!

ManOfSteel wrote:
Some people prefer GUI, some people prefer CLI, and they choose the system they like most depending on that. Why all the fuss, really?
why need "make" when all it does is redundant things that can be done with the shell?

I"m pretty sure it's not the only one. Look at all the GUI frameworks out there, some apps need others, so you have to include them all if you use those apps.

Redundancy is not a good thing, it's the opposite of simplicity.

And the .NET framework is different because .NET is not normal binary -- like Java I guess.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 06 Jan 2010, 17:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
You're trolling, that's what you're doing. You're always making a drama out of trivial matters. You're always criticizing things just for the sake of criticizing them. You criticize things that those who use them don't criticize or find the least bit annoying. And the most interesting part is that you don't even use a *nix system to be able to criticize something that would actually be annoying you and preventing you from doing your work efficiently.


Borsuc wrote:
too many tools which do the same job. That is NOT a good thing. That's what "sucks" in it.

You seem to be confusing things here. make is a build automation tool. The shell is your interactive or batch interface to the OS.
Now you may re-implement make in every setup shell script (redundancy you said?) and build your applications using that shell script if you want. And you can use a wrench as a hammer too. Both do work.


Borsuc wrote:
yeah because some apps only come with source, like Dr.Queue.

It's not the rule and you know it. Most application come in both source and binary versions, my dear Dr. Exceptions.


Borsuc wrote:

SIMPLICITY!
That's what lacks in Linux. You already have a shell but you don't wanna use it

Are you talking about yourself here?

Let's assume you're right. How are these different: make ; make install vs. ./setup.sh ; ./setup.sh install (or ./make.sh ; ./install.sh as it was in the past)? Hm, make commands seem to be simpler.

Unix *is* simple. Simplicity is in the Unix philosophy. That's why there are applications such as make. In Unix you don't have one application that does everything (e.g. the shell). You have several simple applications that only do 1 thing each, the combination of which is currently powering supercomputers and most of the Internet.
And FYI, make is not related to Linux, the GNU version only being a rewrite of the original. When make was created Torvalds was less than 10.


Borsuc wrote:
Look at all the GUI frameworks out there, some apps need others, so you have to include them all if you use those apps.

By "GUI frameworks" I guess you mean widget toolkits. That's called freedom of choice. People want to use one or the other because of how it looks, what it does and how it does it. Remove that and you're taking people's freedoms away. It's like the Ford T, only much more important than just a color.

Yes, there are many toolkits, but only a few are widely used. Most popular applications use either GTK+ or Qt and are part of GNOME or KDE. Use one of these and you'll have everything you need for a desktop environment.

You can always install alternative applications. Most are still based on these toolkits but since they're not part of the DEs, they don't require all the libraries. For example, a non-GNOME GTK-based application would only need GTK itself and possibly also ATK and some GNOME/FreeDesktop-related dependencies such as shared-mime-info or hicolor-icon-theme. That's <10MB.


Borsuc wrote:
And the .NET framework is different because .NET is not normal binary -- like Java I guess.

It's not different at all. .NET applications require the .NET framework. Java applications require the JRE. GNU applications require GNU libraries. Your point????
Post 06 Jan 2010, 22:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
ManOfSteel wrote:
You're trolling, that's what you're doing. You're always making a drama out of trivial matters. You're always criticizing things just for the sake of criticizing them. You criticize things that those who use them don't criticize or find the least bit annoying. And the most interesting part is that you don't even use a *nix system to be able to criticize something that would actually be annoying you and preventing you from doing your work efficiently.
Why are *nix guys always so idealistic?
This isn't even about a right or wrong, correct or incorrect. It's about perspective. *nix guys are like those in school who only want to stick with those like them, and won't even listen to criticism.

Cause you know, as long as they think that they're the center of the world, it's true. Too bad they're still the minority by far. And you would be wise to learn why. If you can't handle even a Windows programmer's perspective on it, then good luck with the "average joes" Smile

ManOfSteel wrote:
You seem to be confusing things here. make is a build automation tool. The shell is your interactive or batch interface to the OS.
The latter can do the job of the former.
Please inform me why the former exists then? Redundancy.

That's how you can sum up most things in Linux.

Redundant tools

Meaning: one tool provides no functionality compared to another one (which may provide that or more).

ManOfSteel wrote:
It's not the rule and you know it. Most application come in both source and binary versions, my dear Dr. Exceptions.
If you weren't so one-sided on this you would see that this part doesn't criticize Linux, but open-source in general -- not the CONCEPT of open-source which I fully support, but the "culture".

Even under Windows, some apps come with Qt, others with GTK, others with some other shit...

see?

Redundancy

ManOfSteel wrote:
Are you talking about yourself here?

Let's assume you're right. How are these different: make ; make install vs. ./setup.sh ; ./setup.sh install (or ./make.sh ; ./install.sh as it was in the past)? Hm, make commands seem to be simpler.
Does Linux not have batch scripts that work as intuitively (when you call them) as in Windows? Confused

ManOfSteel wrote:
And FYI, make is not related to Linux, the GNU version only being a rewrite of the original. When make was created Torvalds was less than 10.
Well I was speaking about the 'culture' of open-source, not the concept, and obviously it reaches the peak at Linux distros where "make" is an assumed tool.

BTW I'm not as one-sided as you. The Microsoft Visual C++ package to me is a million times worse than FASM or gcc to even "setup" it the right way to compile.

ManOfSteel wrote:
By "GUI frameworks" I guess you mean widget toolkits. That's called freedom of choice. People want to use one or the other because of how it looks, what it does and how it does it. Remove that and you're taking people's freedoms away. It's like the Ford T, only much more important than just a color.

Yes, there are many toolkits, but only a few are widely used. Most popular applications use either GTK+ or Qt and are part of GNOME or KDE. Use one of these and you'll have everything you need for a desktop environment.
See, this is the problem with Linux. It doesn't have a central GUI framework or widget as standard -- when there's no central standard to agree on, there's duplicated functionality bloat...

ManOfSteel wrote:
It's not different at all. .NET applications require the .NET framework. Java applications require the JRE. GNU applications require GNU libraries. Your point????
.NET runs a "virtual" machine code, Java as well. You don't need a specific framework for C code, because it can run natively. The framework is there just to avoid making it yourself -- that's NOT the problem and is a GOOD thing (most code is shared between processes for example!).

The problem is when there are multiple frameworks, like imagine multiple java frameworks, some apps requiring one, others requiring another.

That's chaos and redundancy.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 06 Jan 2010, 23:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DustWolf



Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
DustWolf
I don't understand people who criticize freedom of choice and I never will.
Post 06 Jan 2010, 23:40
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
DustWolf wrote:
I don't understand people who criticize freedom of choice and I never will.
You're joking right?

Freedom of choice for development tools is a PITA for the end user. The slogan that Linux is friendly only to programmers (when they program!) has some truth in it after all.

It's the devs who have the freedom of choice -- the end user is ANNOYED at having 10 different frameworks (ok I exaggerate) because some devs wanted X and others wanted Y.

But in the end, that's what annoys the END USER.

It's freedom of choice, yes, for the dev. For the user, it's a pain in the ass.


Now imagine if there was a version of gcc that allowed "free" syntax choices, to choose what syntax you like... now think from the point of view of a newcomer who just wants to skim through some code, what a pain it's going to be. Thank god C has at least a reasonable "standard" base!

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 06 Jan 2010, 23:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
I'm reviving this old thread because I found that Wine was in fact not the cause of Bochs not working correctly, and since the cause is different, maybe someone has encountered the problem I misdiagnosed as another before.

I think I found a bug in Bochs(or Window's shell), when trying to open a Bochs config file on an external drive(Bochs is on the same external drive) Bochs reads the drive letter as an arg. If it matters, Boch didn't register the ".bxrc" extension itself, I used the dialog that comes up when opening an unrecognized file type. Any ideas on how to correct it?
Post 12 May 2010, 02:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
Nevermind, it was the default value of the rom image that was causing it. By default it sets the location of the rom image to "(null)\[irrelevant]" the null being what was messed up.

Normally(when on C:\) it doesn't put the null there, so I assume that may be caused by the fact it is installed on a flash drive.

Now all I have to do is hope my school doesn't prevent .reg files(I made a .reg to register .bxrc on schools computer) from working and I'll be able to osdev at school. They wont let me install on the computer so I install on my flash drive Smile. They wouldn't even let me use Fasm, by I just ignored them since Fasm doesn't need to be installed. The IT guys at my school are annoying.
Post 12 May 2010, 04:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.