My first utility :)
Dos-Man 64
stdout.
Would anyone please help to test this out? I need to make sure the
output is correct, that all the needed files are in the zip file, that
no segmentation faults (related to pointers) are taking place, and
that the end user has the proper priviledges to run the executable.
Once I am sure it is working correctly, I have to whip up a EULA and
upload it somewhere so that people can download it.
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=batch_download&batch_id=ZW9DT20rdzgyWGRFQlE9PQ
Jeremiah Bess
[jbess@Scooter memview]$ ./memview
./memview: error while loading shared libraries: libgtk-1.2.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
I installed libgtk+1.2 (2.0 was available, but did not test it):
[jbess@Scooter memview]$ sudo urpmi libgtk+1.2
To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be installed:
Package Version Release Arch
(medium "Main (Official2009.1-1)")
libglib1.2 1.2.10 22mdv2009.1 i586
(medium "Contrib (Official2009.1-9)")
galaxy-gtk12 1.0.6 2mdv2009.1 i586 (suggested)
gdk-pixbuf-loaders 0.22.0 14mdv2009.1 i586 (suggested)
libgdk-pixbuf2 0.22.0 14mdv2009.1 i586 (suggested)
libgtk+1.2 1.2.10 50mdv2009.1 i586
2.4MB of additional disk space will be used.
798KB of packages will be retrieved.
Proceed with the installation of the 5 packages? (Y/n) y
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mandrake/Mandrakelinux/official/2009.1/i586/media/main/release/libglib1.2-1.2.10-22mdv2009.1.i586.rpm
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mandrake/Mandrakelinux/official/2009.1/i586/media/contrib/release/gdk-pixbuf-loaders-0.22.0-14mdv2009.1.i586.rpm
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mandrake/Mandrakelinux/official/2009.1/i586/media/contrib/release/galaxy-gtk12-1.0.6-2mdv2009.1.i586.rpm
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mandrake/Mandrakelinux/official/2009.1/i586/media/contrib/release/libgdk-pixbuf2-0.22.0-14mdv2009.1.i586.rpm
ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mandrake/Mandrakelinux/official/2009.1/i586/media/contrib/release/libgtk+1.2-1.2.10-50mdv2009.1.i586.rpm
installing libglib1.2-1.2.10-22mdv2009.1.i586.rpm gdk-pixbuf-loaders-0.22.0-14mdv2009.1.i586.rpm galaxy-gtk12-1.0.6-2mdv2009.1.i586.rpm libgdk-pixbuf2-0.22.0-14mdv2009.1.i586.rpm libgtk+1.2-1.2.10-50mdv2009.1.i586.rpm from /var/cache/urpmi/rpms
Preparing... #############################################
1/5: libglib1.2 #############################################
2/5: libgtk+1.2 #############################################
3/5: libgdk-pixbuf2 #############################################
4/5: gdk-pixbuf-loaders #############################################
5/5: galaxy-gtk12 #############################################
Then I ran it again, and it worked, but with an error.
[jbess@Scooter memview]$ ./memview
Gtk-WARNING **: Failed to load module "libcanberra-gtk-module.so": libcanberra-gtk-module.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
It displayed on my screen, but did not update. I opened a few programs, and it stayed at the same numbers. I then opened top and took a screenshot of what I was currently at (attached). While the application looks like it will work with a few modifications, it's actual use is questionable. I think it might be better suited as a desktop widget or plasmoid to embed on KDE4.
Jeremiah E. Bess
Network Ninja, Penguin Geek, Father of four
Luther Goh Lu Feng
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Where is the source for this? And what is the license for this program. Sounds very fishy to me.
Ryan Graham
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Dos-Man 64 <Chai...@mail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> Would anyone please help to test this out? I need to make sure the
>> output is correct, that all the needed files are in the zip file,
>> that
>> no segmentation faults (related to pointers) are taking place, and
>> that the end user has the proper priviledges to run the executable.
>> Once I am sure it is working correctly, I have to whip up a EULA and
>> upload it somewhere so that people can download it.
>>
>> http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=batch_download&batch_id=ZW9DT20rdzgyWGRFQlE9PQ
>>
> Where is the source for this? And what is the license for this
> program. Sounds very fishy to me.
>
Not so much fishy as unconventional. Dos-Man is just new to the Linux
software writing scene, so he just has some catching up to do.
Regarding distribution, Dos-Man, you should consider open sourcing
your program. It is quite customary for this sort of program, as is
distributing as source code rather than binary. Zip is also a bit
uncommon in the Linux world, with tarballs (.tar.gz, .tar.bz2, .tgz,
etc.) being the norm.
~Ryan
Luther Goh Lu Feng
----- Original Message ----
> From: Ryan Graham <r.m.g...@gmail.com>
> To: "linuxus...@googlegroups.com" <linuxus...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:06:27 AM
> Subject: [lug:15211] Re: My first utility :)
>
>
> On 2009-09-24, at 11:02 PM, Luther Goh Lu Feng wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Dos-Man 64
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Would anyone please help to test this out? I need to make sure the
> >> output is correct, that all the needed files are in the zip file,
> >> that
> >> no segmentation faults (related to pointers) are taking place, and
> >> that the end user has the proper priviledges to run the executable.
> >> Once I am sure it is working correctly, I have to whip up a EULA and
> >> upload it somewhere so that people can download it.
> >>
> >>
> http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=batch_download&batch_id=ZW9DT20rdzgyWGRFQlE9PQ
> >>
> > Where is the source for this? And what is the license for this
> > program. Sounds very fishy to me.
> >
>
> Not so much fishy as unconventional. Dos-Man is just new to the Linux
> software writing scene, so he just has some catching up to do.
>
> Regarding distribution, Dos-Man, you should consider open sourcing
> your program. It is quite customary for this sort of program, as is
> distributing as source code rather than binary. Zip is also a bit
> uncommon in the Linux world, with tarballs (.tar.gz, .tar.bz2, .tgz,
> etc.) being the norm.
>
> ~Ryan
>
Sorry for sounding that paranoid.... the spam bots I have encountered on some mailing lists and forums are becoming increasingly sophisticated.
But I think it is my mistake in this case. My apologies.
Cheers,
Luther
Dos-Man 64
On Sep 25, 8:06 am, Ryan Graham <r.m.gra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-09-24, at 11:02 PM, Luther Goh Lu Feng <elf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Dos-Man 64 <ChairS...@mail.com>
>
> >> Would anyone please help to test this out? I need to make sure the
> >> output is correct, that all the needed files are in the zip file,
> >> that
> >> no segmentation faults (related to pointers) are taking place, and
> >> that the end user has the proper priviledges to run the executable.
> >> Once I am sure it is working correctly, I have to whip up a EULA and
> >> upload it somewhere so that people can download it.
>
Dos-Man 64
On Sep 25, 7:17 am, Jeremiah Bess <jeremiah.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I tried it on Mandriva 2009 Spring. I ran ./memview and got a dependency
>
> *
>
> *[jbess@Scooter memview]$ ./memview*
> *./memview: error while loading shared libraries: libgtk-1.2.so.0: cannot
> open shared object file: No such file or directory*
>
> *
> *I installed libgtk+1.2 (2.0 was available, but did not test it):*
>
> *
>
> *[jbess@Scooter memview]$ sudo urpmi
> libgtk+1.2 *
> *To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be
> installed: *
> * Package Version Release
> Arch *
> *(medium "Main
> (Official2009.1-1)") *
> * libglib1.2 1.2.10 22mdv2009.1
> i586 *
> *(medium "Contrib
> (Official2009.1-9)") *
> * galaxy-gtk12 1.0.6 2mdv2009.1 i586
> (suggested) *
> * gdk-pixbuf-loaders 0.22.0 14mdv2009.1 i586
> (suggested) *
> * libgdk-pixbuf2 0.22.0 14mdv2009.1 i586
> (suggested) *
> * libgtk+1.2 1.2.10 50mdv2009.1
> i586 *
> *2.4MB of additional disk space will be
> used. *
> *798KB of packages will be
> retrieved. *
> *Proceed with the installation of the 5 packages? (Y/n) y **
> *
>
> *ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mandrake/Mandrakelinux/official/2009.1/i586/...
> *
> *ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mandrake/Mandrakelinux/official/2009.1/i586/...
> *
> *ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mandrake/Mandrakelinux/official/2009.1/i586/...
> *
> *ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mandrake/Mandrakelinux/official/2009.1/i586/...
> *
> *ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mandrake/Mandrakelinux/official/2009.1/i586/...
> *
> *installing libglib1.2-1.2.10-22mdv2009.1.i586.rpm
> gdk-pixbuf-loaders-0.22.0-14mdv2009.1.i586.rpm
> galaxy-gtk12-1.0.6-2mdv2009.1.i586.rpm
> libgdk-pixbuf2-0.22.0-14mdv2009.1.i586.rpm
> libgtk+1.2-1.2.10-50mdv2009.1.i586.rpm from /var/cache/urpmi/rpms*
> *Preparing...
> #############################################*
> * 1/5: libglib1.2
> #############################################*
> * 2/5: libgtk+1.2
> #############################################*
> * 3/5: libgdk-pixbuf2
> #############################################*
> * 4/5: gdk-pixbuf-loaders
> #############################################*
> * 5/5: galaxy-gtk12
> #############################################*
>
> *
> *Then I ran it again, and it worked, but with an error.
> *
> *
>
>
>
> > *[jbess@Scooter memview]$ ./memview*
>
> > *Gtk-WARNING **: Failed to load module "libcanberra-gtk-module.so":
> It displayed on my screen, but did not update. I opened a few programs, and
> it stayed at the same numbers. I then opened top and took a screenshot of
> what I was currently at (attached). While the application looks like it will
> work with a few modifications, it's actual use is questionable. I think it
> might be better suited as a desktop widget or plasmoid to embed on KDE4.
>
> Jeremiah E. Bess
> Network Ninja, Penguin Geek, Father of four
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 23:25, Dos-Man 64 <ChairS...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > This displays total memory and free memory, either in a window or to
> > stdout.
>
> > Would anyone please help to test this out? I need to make sure the
> > output is correct, that all the needed files are in the zip file, that
> > no segmentation faults (related to pointers) are taking place, and
> > that the end user has the proper priviledges to run the executable.
> > Once I am sure it is working correctly, I have to whip up a EULA and
> > upload it somewhere so that people can download it.
>
Jeremiah, this is not intended to update itself. It is intended to
provide you with a snapshot of what your memory situation looks like
at a particular moment in time. If you wanted to compare the output
after you had run some programs to see how much memory they used, use
command line redirection.
Like this...
$ echo running memview for the first time > memview.log
$ memview -c >> memview.log
$ echo running xmms and k3b now >> memview.log
$ xmms
$ k3b
$ echo running memview for the second time >> memview.log
$ memview -c >> memview.log
What the hell is a plasmoid? :D
Jeremiah Bess
Jeremiah E. Bess
Network Ninja, Penguin Geek, Father of four
Dos-Man 64
source code files are in the zip file. Right now I'm mainly
interested if it is displaying correct totals. I don't remember how
much memory I put in my machine. Windows says 442 megs or something
along those lines, but I thought I had put more than that. I'm also
not sure if the total free memory is being reported correctly.
According to this program, knoppix is used up about close to 400 megs
of what I have.
Dos-Man 64
amount of free memory by using popen(). The short program below
demonstrates this.
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
int main()
{
FILE * read_fp;
char buffer [ BUFSIZ+1];
int chars_read;
long int val;
memset(buffer, '\0', sizeof(buffer));
read_fp = popen("memview -c -v -f", "r");
if (read_fp != NULL)
{
chars_read = fread(buffer, sizeof(char), BUFSIZ, read_fp);
if (chars_read > 0)
{
if(val = strtol(buffer, NULL, 10))
printf("You have at least %li megs of free memory\n", val);
else
printf("Could not computer total\n");
}
pclose(read_fp);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
Florin Ivan
Florin Ivan
Tel: 0724.56.89.60
Mails & Messengers:
flor...@gmail.com
flor...@yahoo.com
flor...@hotmail.com
flor...@skype.com
ICQ: 282734615
Linux user #468266
Dos-Man 64
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Dos-Man 64 <ChairS...@mail.com>
>
> >> Would anyone please help to test this out? I need to make sure the
> >> output is correct, that all the needed files are in the zip file,
> >> that
> >> no segmentation faults (related to pointers) are taking place, and
> >> that the end user has the proper priviledges to run the executable.
> >> Once I am sure it is working correctly, I have to whip up a EULA and
> >> upload it somewhere so that people can download it.
>
> > Where is the source for this? And what is the license for this
> > program. Sounds very fishy to me.
>
> Not so much fishy as unconventional. Dos-Man is just new to the Linux
> software writing scene, so he just has some catching up to do.
>
> Regarding distribution, Dos-Man, you should consider open sourcing
> your program. It is quite customary for this sort of program, as is
> distributing as source code rather than binary. Zip is also a bit
> uncommon in the Linux world, with tarballs (.tar.gz, .tar.bz2, .tgz,
> etc.) being the norm.
>
> ~Ryan
executable? I seek to avoid the use of runtimes, especially since I
have no idea of how to create installation packages. Anyway, I'm a
big believer that no self-respecting c or c++ application should ever
require any type of external runtimes. That kind of crap is for wimp
languages like c#, java, and vb.
Daniel Eggleston
Ryan Graham
>
> Is there some way I can statically link the GTK+ library to the
> executable? I seek to avoid the use of runtimes, especially since I
> have no idea of how to create installation packages. Anyway, I'm a
> big believer that no self-respecting c or c++ application should ever
> require any type of external runtimes. That kind of crap is for wimp
> languages like c#, java, and vb.
Dynamic linking is both a blessing and a curse to the Linux world. On
the one hand, you have much smaller packages. On the other hand, you
have dependency hell which is only partially solved by package
managers (the degree of success is tied to your willingness to work
with them rather than against them).
There are merits to both approaches, but the general consensus is that
dynamic linking is your friend (which has allowed Linux to progress to
where it is today).
If you want to statically link your app, you'll need to read up on the
CLI arguments to pass to gcc, -static in particular. You may have to
install additional packages (or compile them yourself) to get this to
work as static linking is not very popular and your distro may not
have the static version of the libraries.
In my opinion, if you want to do this the "Linux way", you'd
distribute the program as source only and not care about the linking.
~Ryan
--
http://rmgraham.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/rmgraham
Dos-Man 64
any concern of the memory requirements, and the programmer just wants
the user to be able to use the program without jumping through complex
installation hoops, then it doesn't explain why static linking isn't
one of the available options? I'm not saying it's always preferable,
but sometimes it is.
Dos-Man 64
use my programs on any linux distro and have them work, without me
having to run a setup program first. My application is working fine
right now in knoppix, but doesn't work in ubuntu. Not really sure what
will happen when I get my dreamlinux dvd in the mail, but that's the
problem. It should work. I shouldn't have to worry about which
libraries are installed where.
Daniel Eggleston
runtime shared libraries in a package, with a wrapper script that sets the
LD_LIBRARY_PATH before running.
Dos-Man 64
On Sep 29, 2:33 pm, Daniel Eggleston <egg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can go the route of some programs I've used, and include the necessary
> runtime shared libraries in a package, with a wrapper script that sets the
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH before running.
>
>
or -static-libgcc options to do what needed to be done. I think free
pascal programs are standalone executables, or at least I hope they
are.
Ryan Graham
As long as you don't use any libraries like pascal bindings for GTK+.
~Ryan
Dos-Man 64
On Sep 29, 6:28 pm, Ryan Graham <r.m.gra...@gmail.com> wrote:
language over. That will cure a lot of ills, especially if I'm able to
make it a compiled language with windowing capabilities (It eventually
got there on windows.) I'm just not in the mood right now for
undertaking any major projects. Man, it's a lot of work :(