19990108: more on compilers for solaris7

>From: address@hidden
>Organization: St. Cloud State
>Keywords: 199901082009.NAA05180

Alan-

> I really appreciate you discussing this with me, although it is
>just another example of the great service you people provide.

I should probably be in listening to Dave's AMS talk, but serving
our sites is what we're here for. ;-)

>I understand the extra work involved if changes are made and binaries are the
>form of distribution.  

But I think it is something we should do for GEMPAK and McIDAS.  We do
it for LDM and LDM-McIDAS!

>Not sure if I understand your comments re SSEC.  Are you saying they will
>provide
>gcc and f2c with future releases so that individual sites won't need it?  

SSEC is going to support x86 for their next release of McIDAS.  We
already support it using Sun's compilers,  but they are going to support it
using gcc and f2c.  I'm not sure of the details, but I presume they
are going to make gcc and f2c compilers (in binary form) available for 
sites that are going to build McIDAS-X/XCD.  They want to use gcc and
f2c on all their platforms besides X86.  

>Also, I hesitate to whine for binaries as a general release policy.

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. ;-)  We need to consider binaries as
an easy way for sites to install GEMPAK and McIDAS-X, just like we
did for OS/2.  While the compiling is simple (if you have the compilers)
it's just one more thing that could potentially go wrong in the
installation process.  We should also provide binaries for Linux.
This is done for GEMPAK already, but that was because to build
GEMPAK under Linux, you need to buy Motif also.

>One thing that might enter in is how
>many sites, especially smaller ones (lacking resources) are using the various 
>operating systems.  Is sun's x86 the most common  pc unix among the upc
>sites, or likely to be, after os2 is phased out?  If so, then a committment to
>binaries at least for x86 would have greater utility. 
>As I recall, Sun and Solaris are the most frequently used systems for
>workstations.

Right now, Linux is probably used more than Solaris X86 at Unidata
sites on PCs.  However, Linux poses a security threat if you are not able
to keep up with the updates.  3 Unidata sites running Linux have been
hacked into in the past month.  One was Alan Czarnetzki's machine and
the hacker brought down the entire UNI network.

>Also, is SSEC tilting toward sun's x86?  

Yes, they are going to support it in the next release using gcc and f2c.
They are also going to support WindowsNT running a package called Interix
that will allow Unix applications to run under Windows NT (not 95/98).
We will be evaluating that, but are not ready to support it until
we have some experience with it.  gcc and f2c will be used for building
that version also.

>I could just as well have chosen linux.  I chose sun because
>my discussions with you and Tom suggested that Sun was making a solid
>committment
>to a pc (intel) version of unix, and that it might turn out to be the more
>common choice,  while linux seemed a bit less solid.  Also, I 
>had misinterpreted the inclusion of the compilers.  Perhaps I drew an
>unwarranted conclusion.

Times and ideas change.  Solaris is a more secure system now, but
their committment to varied PC hardware seems to be waning.  With
the release of Solaris 7 (which version did you get) they are saying 
there is only a certain number of configurations that they will support.
For now, those that worked with 2.6 should work with 7.0.  Tom and
I had a discussion about this issue this morning.  He thinks Solaris
is the way to go since it is a more secure system.  I like Linux
because it comes with additional software (Netscape, Perl, compilers)
but then again it is more of a security threat.  Since you don't 
have a system admin to keep continual watch over these systems,
Solaris is a good way to go for you.

>One thing I would say is that I fully understand that UPC cannot support 
>all possible combinations of hardware and operating systems.  In general, I
>would
>support a UPC policy that encourages the sites  to standardize on one or two 
>operating systems.  For those sites with lots of talent, that won't make
>any difference
>(they can customize as they now do) but for many of us, we will avoid
>errors and
>get a better return from our resources under such a policy;  i.e.
>'limiting' our 
>choices (by UPC policy) can be a help to us.    

Well, for PC users, that is why we settled on Solaris and RedHat Linux
(rather than all flavors of Linux).  I think (as with OS/2) we'll find 
out what hardware works and what doesn't.

>One more question.
>What are the software needs and costs if one goes the linux route?

You can get RedHat Linux 5.2 with compilers and a whole bunch of software
for $49 or less.  I saw an ad at Best Buy for 19.99, but that seemed
to be a one shot deal.

>As you know, at this point, we have neither time nor money invested in either
>version, although the base sun software is on hand.  

I think you need to go with whatever you can get support for on 
campus.  If you can get help with Solaris, then stay that route.  Linux
has a larger overhead in terms of support in that you have to keep
up with security patches and be more vigilant about attacks.  If you
have support on campus for Linux and they are willing to help you
secure your system, then that would be an option.

Here's what I suggest.  Get Solaris and the LDM up and running on your
new system.  We will either provide a binary release, or use your
system to figure out what needs to be done to compile McIDAS 7.4 with
gcc and f2c and then document that so you can do it yourself on
the other systems.  My offer of a site visit still holds also.

Are you confused yet? ;-)

If you have more questions, let me know.  Oh, I'll be out on Monday
helping Tony Rockwood install Linux on one of his OS/2 systems.
He is running Solaris on his ingesting machine, but was interested
in trying Linux also.  Otherwise, I should be here the rest of the
week.

Don