I downloaded fasm-1.67.26.tgz for Linux. It contains only the "source" and "examples" directories. But where are the macros ? I wanted to use "proc32.inc" and "if.inc" (available in the windows version) in Linux too. But these macros are missing.

I think that TG is neglecting the Linux version. Not correct...

All the versions of source code are the same anyway. It is only the executable that is different. Just download the windows package and use the macros from there.

Well, since I already used FASM under windows, I'll use the macros from there, anyways. But what about a newbie who wants to use FASM only on Linux, without having come across FASM for windows ?

I still can't believe that FASM is so much Windows-oriented. Why don't we have an IDE for Linux ? FASMW.EXE is a part of standard distribution for Windows; but there is no IDE with Linux. I'm forced to use some third party IDEs. Are Linux-FASM users so under-developed that they can't develop an IDE?

I am sure that everyone would appreciate an IDE for LINUX. You could start a project to make one.

The FASMX was planned as next after FASMD, but so far I have never got into starting it.
It might be easier to make a console port of FASMD, though.

@revolution:
Unfortunately, I'm still a beginner to both Linux & FASM. I've been using MASM all along. I will actively participate if such a project for IDE comes up.

@TG:
Yes, plz. I agree. I/we need it.

I disagree. There are _so_ many editors for *nix, we don't need another one.

Let's face it. FASMW is very, very simple. The best for editing FASM code, but simple.

Most editors allow for custom highlighters. Copy one from your favorite (nano, vim, gedit, etc), and make all of the commas and periods and colons blue, numerics green, etc. There you go! I like using nano... but you choose.

Then why windows coders keep using FASMW? There are even more code editors for Windows than for UNIX. We use FASMW because it is integrated, simple, fast, and clean. I for one would use FASMX. Hope there's some LibC version too.

IMHO making a VIM syntax file for FASM would be all one really needs. May make one too.

There's already one. Try this :

Nice! I didn't expect vim to have fasm syntax, just been using asm.vim syntax all this time, that syntax is getting set as my default *.asm handler, thanks TmX.

Also, In case someone is having some kind of vote on "who wants a linux IDE", I dont see a need for it. Theres plenty of editors that do the job nicely, vim being one, with normal asm highlighting, (or even fasm-specific highlighting (im still shocked its been sitting there all this time and i havent used it!)). I'm sure there's an audience for a linux fasm IDE, but personally anyway, I prefer to stick to one editor for all my editing work in multiple languages, especially when that editor has a lot of useful commands, that can be a bit of a struggle to learn, but when you know them, they are very useful, when doing any kind of editing work. using another IDE would mean losing those commands, (and perhaps having to learn more).

Not to say a linux ide shouldnt be built, if someone wants to, it's up to them, but I think the audience will be smaller than for the windows fasm ide.

I think its the "Compile" and "Run" features of the IDE more than any syntax editing that beginners would prefer. It's the configuration that beginners don't care for. An "out of the box" solution seems to be something the Linux developer base is just recently grasping.

But hey Linux users LOVE typing in the command line, so who am I to judge

Scenario 1: First Time Windows User
Install Windows [DONE]
Download/Unzip FASMW [DONE click click click]
Use FASMW [Get that annoying INCLUDE error]
Fix the INCLUDE environment variable everything works [DONE]

Scenario 2: First Time Linux User
Install Linux [DONE]
Download/Unpack FASM [DONE]
Boggle at no IDE [VIM? what, :SET FT=FASM? what]
Boggle at how to link [GCC? huh where's Compile and Run?!]
Download the windows package to get the macros [DONE]
Ask FASM community why it was such a hassle to get Hello LibC working [DONE ]

Scenario 1 is almost totally "noob" accessible, while Scenario 2 requires a lot more prior knowledge/RTFM/scavenging the boards.

I don't see Linux as being an OS for newbies[1], but many of the existing Linux users would probably be okay with it.

[1]This is one of the major failings of Linux, the assumption by many developers that the users 'know' how to operate a command prompt. And for this reason, many average Joe's will never consider Linux as a possible platform for them to use daily. That is why I say Linux is not an OS for newbies, unless that newbie is very keen and willing to undergo a lot of pain to get an understanding of how it works.