I started programming back in 1980 Jim. I worked with IBM's Basica and then MS GWBasic about the same time (they were pratically identical.) I moved to MS Quickbasic in the late 80's and Visual Basic in the mid-90's. Basically (not a pun), I still use the original basic language I learned (self-taught,) but add in the graphical features and a bit (5% maybe) of the newer Visual Basic language.
Would the former of those below give me some 'starting point' to 'play' with in Ubuntu with my limited expertise? Linz On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 16:02 +1300, Jim Cheetham wrote: > Nick Rout wrote: > > Jim Cheetham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Nick Rout wrote: > >>>If so the debian packages will probably work: > >>>http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?keywords=gambas&searchon=names&subword=1&version=all&release=all > >>No no no, and a hundred times no. > > > > can you explain for us plebs what "main" and "universe" are, and how they > > differ from the debian package streams? > > "main" is the place to find the programs that are fully supported and > loved by the Ubuntu developers. Everything that is installed from the > Ubuntu CD comes from main, and everything in "main" is basically a > showcase for Ubuntu. > > "universe" contains all the other software taken from Debian that seems > to compile properly and work. However, it won't all be fully useable. > > As an example, ethereal comes from "universe", and by default it adds > menu items that invoke it as root, using "kdesu". Unfortunately, this > won't work on Ubuntu, because there is no password available for root. > The fix is to get ethereal to invoke "kdesudo" - this works. > > There are other repositories - "restricted" which contains non-free > stuff, and "multiverse", which contains things from universe that seem > to compile OK, but don't run properly, or have execution dependancies > that don't exist. > > > Is it that they contain similar packages, but the ubuntu ones are > > separately compiled by and for ubuntu? > > Not just compiled, but they have some file locations and other > expectations altered. As with the ethereal example above, these may not > be strictly technical expectations. > > > I know debian maintains a source package for each package, which has > > metadata for instructing the system how to compile it and ''debianise" it. > > Would it be in order to utilise a debian source package on ubuntu in this > > way? > > Yes-ish, but Debianisation is not Ubuntuisation - although Ubuntu > intends to repeatedly get new software from Debian's tree, they don't > expect to use it without hacking. It may be fairer to go to the original > tarball for random software, although this might give you problems with > inadequately explained dependancies. > > Now, this isn't particularly helpful for the original poster of this > subthread. There are a couple of BASIC packages available for Ubuntu, > but they're not GUI IDE sorts of things. > > universe/bwbasic: > Description: Bywater BASIC Interpreter > The Bywater BASIC Interpreter (bwBASIC) implements a large superset of > the ANSI Standard for Minimal BASIC (X3.60-1978) and a significant > subset of the ANSI Standard for Full BASIC (X3.113-1987) in C. It also > offers shell programming facilities as an extension of BASIC. bwBASIC > seeks to be as portable as possible. > > universe/yabasic: > Description: Yet Another BASIC interpreter > Implements the most common (and simple) elements of the language plus > some graphics facilities. Anyone who has ever written BASIC programs > on a C-64 should feel at home. > > > >>Now, Ubuntu *is* a standard Linux, and has all the development tools > >>available. I'm just saying that you shouldn't use them, not that you can't. > > "freedom" is a clearly a variable commodity :-) > > Indeed it is. Just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't > mean that you *should* do it! > > -jim > >
