Hi, has anybody tested sage in windows using Lina? I don't know
exactly what Lina does, but it sounds good from it's description. It's
1.0 beta and might be jet another option to run native linux
applications on windows... ?
> Hi, has anybody tested sage in windows using Lina? I don't know > exactly what Lina does, but it sounds good from it's description. It's > 1.0 beta and might be jet another option to run native linux > applications on windows... ?
I looked at it for a while today, but it doesn't work at all on OS X 10.6 (unlike VirtualBox), so I gave up. I'm dubious about it being useful for Sage, as compared to what should be possible with VirtualBox. I also find Lina's extremely limited description of how it works and what it does to be incredibly frustrating and annoying. Why do they have to be so stealthy? What do they have to hide?
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 4:24 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Harald Schilly > <harald.schi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi, has anybody tested sage in windows using Lina? I don't know >> exactly what Lina does, but it sounds good from it's description. It's >> 1.0 beta and might be jet another option to run native linux >> applications on windows... ?
> I looked at it for a while today, but it doesn't work at all on OS X > 10.6 (unlike VirtualBox), so I gave up. I'm dubious about it being > useful for Sage, as compared to what should be possible with > VirtualBox. I also find Lina's extremely limited description of how > it works and what it does to be incredibly frustrating and annoying. > Why do they have to be so stealthy? What do they have to hide?
Has anybody here tried "Puppy Linux"? I stumbled upon it yesterday, and have become quite enamored of it. It is systematically optimized for being "small" (e.g., using squashfs and unionfs very systematically), and provides a full GUI. It's a lot like "Damn Small Linux", but is twice as big (base system is 100MB instead of 50MB) and much, much prettier. It's also somewhat easy to install a compiler environment into (once you figure out how). I was able to build Sage from source on it, no problem, since our binaries didn't work.
I've also experimented with creating a squashfs version of a built sage-4.1.2. Since Sage now doesn't change it's install directory when running this works. Of course upgrading or doing development on such a sage would be impossible, unless one uses unionfs.
A virtualbox install of Puppy Linux with VirtualBox's tools installed (so the mouse doesn't get stuck in the window, file sharing with the host works, etc.) takes just 300MB. Installing gcc/g++/make etc., compilers takes an extra 90MB. Then a complete sage-4.1.2 Sage install takes MB, so:
Non-LiveCD Puppy Linux with GUI and virtualbox tools ...... 274MB Sage-4.1.2 ........................................................................... 375MB
Total ........................................................................... ............. 649MB
I didn't include the compiler above, since the target audience is people on Windows that just want to effectively use Sage (which is by far the vast majority of Sage downloads).
By the way, squashfs is an easy-to-install Ubuntu package, so next time somebody asks about installing Sage on Linux and using little space, we can tell them to use squashfs, which allows for a *running* Sage install that takes only 375 MB disk space.
I want to emphasize that the 649MB above is the space needed to run Sage *after download* -- i.e., that is the initial amount used on the user's hard drive. This means that if this all works out, then Sage on Puppy Linux (hence Windows) will take less than *half* the space than Sage on Linux or OS X. Also, this is not a live cd, but a real linux install.
There are of course temptations, e.g., installing JAVA, jsmath image fonts, latex, etc., which would substantially increase that number.
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:54 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 4:24 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Harald Schilly >> <harald.schi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, has anybody tested sage in windows using Lina? I don't know >>> exactly what Lina does, but it sounds good from it's description. It's >>> 1.0 beta and might be jet another option to run native linux >>> applications on windows... ?
>> I looked at it for a while today, but it doesn't work at all on OS X >> 10.6 (unlike VirtualBox), so I gave up. I'm dubious about it being >> useful for Sage, as compared to what should be possible with >> VirtualBox. I also find Lina's extremely limited description of how >> it works and what it does to be incredibly frustrating and annoying. >> Why do they have to be so stealthy? What do they have to hide?
> Has anybody here tried "Puppy Linux"? I stumbled upon it yesterday, > and have become quite enamored of it. It is systematically optimized > for being "small" (e.g., using squashfs and unionfs very > systematically), and provides a full GUI. It's a lot like "Damn Small > Linux", but is twice as big (base system is 100MB instead of 50MB) and > much, much prettier. It's also somewhat easy to install a compiler > environment into (once you figure out how). I was able to build Sage > from source on it, no problem, since our binaries didn't work.
> I've also experimented with creating a squashfs version of a built > sage-4.1.2. Since Sage now doesn't change it's install directory when > running this works. Of course upgrading or doing development on such a > sage would be impossible, unless one uses unionfs.
> A virtualbox install of Puppy Linux with VirtualBox's tools installed > (so the mouse doesn't get stuck in the window, file sharing with the > host works, etc.) takes just 300MB. Installing gcc/g++/make etc., > compilers takes an extra 90MB. Then a complete sage-4.1.2 Sage > install takes MB, so:
> Non-LiveCD Puppy Linux with GUI and virtualbox tools ...... 274MB > Sage-4.1.2 ........................................................................... > 375MB
> Total ........................................................................... ............. > 649MB
> I didn't include the compiler above, since the target audience is > people on Windows that just want to effectively use Sage (which is by > far the vast majority of Sage downloads).
> By the way, squashfs is an easy-to-install Ubuntu package, so next > time somebody asks about installing Sage on Linux and using little > space, we can tell them to use squashfs, which allows for a *running* > Sage install that takes only 375 MB disk space.
> I want to emphasize that the 649MB above is the space needed to run > Sage *after download* -- i.e., that is the initial amount used on the > user's hard drive. This means that if this all works out, then Sage > on Puppy Linux (hence Windows) will take less than *half* the space > than Sage on Linux or OS X. Also, this is not a live cd, but a real > linux install.
> There are of course temptations, e.g., installing JAVA, jsmath image > fonts, latex, etc., which would substantially increase that number.
I'm adding the jsmath image fonts, since compressed they take up only 3.1 MB, which still keeps the extracted downloaded sage size to 653MB. Uncompressed, they use well over 100MB. Yeah squashfs!
> Hi, has anybody tested sage in windows using Lina? I don't know > exactly what Lina does, but it sounds good from it's description. It's > 1.0 beta and might be jet another option to run native linux > applications on windows... ?
I was just cleaning up files on my system today and found that there were several files "lina.*" in my VirtualBox install directory, which I guess were left by the failed LINA install I tried yesterday. So it appears that LINA may actually just be a wrapper around VirtualBox? Which is weird because VirtualBox is mentioned nowhere on their webpage (as far as I can tell). They also write "... Nile Geisinger, inventor and Chief Architect of Lina Software's proprietary technologies." When it comes to software, the word "proprietary" is a dirty word (to me).
