On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Bill Page <[email protected]> wrote: > > William, > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:54 PM, you wrote: >> Bill Page wrote: >>> I think it is also useful to increase video memory to the minimum 7 >>> Mb. required for seamless mode. I tried this since I usually prefer to >>> run in this mode where the linux system seems to share the same >>> desktop as windows. But I couldn't quite get it to work. Maybe it is a >>> limitation of the window manager? >> >> I don't know if it will work ever. Regarding video memory, no matter >> what i set when I export the machine, it always resets the video >> memory to 4MB on import. >> > > Well, after setting the display memory to 7 Mb. it almost works. The > only problem is that I can't seem to find the Menu bar. Usually it > would sit just above the Windows start bar (or at the top of the > screen if the linux default is to show the Menu at the top). Any > windows that are open however remain on the windows desktop. So I > supposed that this might be a limitation of jwm. > >>> I found 'Menu/Utilities/Resize Personal File' very useful because I >>> really wanted to try copying /sage into a writable area so I could >>> install optional packages like fricas-aldor. >> >> Wow, I didn't even know about that! Did this work. >> > > Unfortunately no because the vmdk disk has a maximum fixed size of > only 2 Gb. It might be better and probably not take much more space > in the compressed file if this disk were at least twice as large. > Also you might consider using expandable disks like .vdi instead of > .vmdk. But I am not sure of the pros and cons of this choice.
1. vmdk disks are expanding disks. Otherwise the vmdk file would have been 2GB to start with instead of about 300MB. 2. when you use VirtualBox to export a "VirtualBox Appliance" then all the disks are always exported vmdk. The user has no choice in the matter, as far as I can tell. This is I think part of the "open virtual machine format". This might be because Vmdk is a much more "industry standard" format than vdi. 3. One could probably replace the "expand to 2GB" vmdk by one that expands larger. In the meantime it's good that you simply added another virtual disk that is whatever size you want. > Using a Windows file system shared folder does not work because it > does not support linux symbolic links. :-( It depends what you want to use it for, I guess. But yes, Windows doesn't have linux symlinks, which is definitely a problem. > > In the meantime I created a new .vdi disk as workspace and I am > playing with that. After copying /sage over to this disk I tried > './sage -upgrade but something here is still read-only it seems... > > # ./sage -upgrade Look at SAGE_ROOT in the file "sage" -- you're still running the old version from the read only file system. Just edit SAGE_ROOT to your new location. > Testing mirrors... > [2 ] modular.fas.harvard.edu 145 [ms] > [0 ] mirror.switch.ch 358 [ms] > [1 ] mirror.yandex.ru 690 [ms] > [3 ] sage.scipy.org 680 [ms] > automatically selected server modular.fas.harvard.edu > (http://modular.fas.harvard.edu/sage/) > Downloading packages from http://modular.fas.harvard.edu/sage//spkg > http://modular.fas.harvard.edu/sage//spkg/standard > Reading package lists... > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/sage/local/bin/sage-update", line 315, in <module> > do_update() > File "/sage/local/bin/sage-update", line 263, in do_update > packages = spkg_list('standard') > File "/sage/local/bin/sage-update", line 229, in spkg_list > urllib.urlretrieve(web_url, file, reporthook) > File "/sage/local/lib/python/urllib.py", line 94, in urlretrieve > return _urlopener.retrieve(url, filename, reporthook, data) > File "/sage/local/lib/python/urllib.py", line 239, in retrieve > tfp = open(filename, 'wb') > IOError: [Errno 30] Read-only file system: 'list.tmp' > Error getting new packages! > > --- > > This is just playing and I didn't really expect it to work. And of > course none of this is the kind of thing for which this virtual > machine was really intended. That is correct. I hope somebody creates a completely separate virtual machine aimed at what you want. Maybe you just want to run a full Linux under Windows + VirtualBox though, for which there are already oodles and oodles of existing options? > Like you said earlier perhaps there is a > need for somewhat larger version of this sort of virtual machine that > includes enough to actually do some development. But just how big is > too big? Is it really worth the effort? > > Puppy seems pretty solid but kind of in a "world of it's own" when it > comes to installing packages etc. I guess the main advantage of this > puppy is it's extremely small size for a linux distribution. That is indeed its advantage. It's installed size is literally *less than* 10% the size of a minimal Ubuntu install! It is also less resource intensive, being designed for use on low-end hardware. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
