On Dec 30, 3:56 pm, "Bill Page" <bill.p...@newsynthesis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 6:37 PM, mabshoff wrote:
<SNIP>
> > Well, blame VMWare then. The tuning process died - that is usually
> > not a software problem.
>
> I don't mind blaming VMWare, but that doesn't solve my problem. :-)
>
> Actually in recent months I have come to prefer VirtualBox
>
> http://www.virtualbox.org
Well, it depends on what you want to do. Running 16+ images with
remote admin capabilities: VirtualBox not an option (yet). Running an
image or two locally with GUI access - sure.
> over VMWare on both Linux and Windows hosts, but having put this much
> time into this particular vm I am reluctant to suggest a change now.
<SNIP>
> > On a more general note: g77 sucks, use gfortran.
>
> Should I expect something better from 'gfortan' or is this the same as
> the 'g95' that is included in Sage? If you think it might help, how do
> I try this?
g95 is a gfortran fork which used to be better in the gcc 4.0/4.1
timeframe, but has seriously fallen behind gfortran these days IMHO.
But I am not a Fortran compiler expert, so some people might disagree.
I would strongly vote for getting rid of all Fortran binaries in Sage
except for the OSX ones since they do cause problems. Using the system
provided gfortran, g95 or g77 does work as well and we have one fewer
source of pain. It does require some fixing of the Fortran runtime
detection used in Sage, but I meant to clean that up anyway.
> > ...
>
> Regards,
> Bill Page.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
