www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Getting dmd to work on Linux

reply Glenn M. Lewis <Glenn_member pathlink.com> writes:
I'm thinking about embarking on my first large project in D, and the result
needs to run on Linux and Win32.  Dmd seems to work fine on Win32.  But on
Linux, I get this:

dmd: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared
object file: No such file or directory

I searched through the archives, and this seems to be a common problem, but I
have not found any solution to the problem as of yet.  I also have no control
over the Linux box or any of the /etc, /lib, or /usr directories.  Also, I don't
even know what distribution of Linux is on this box.

Any ideas on getting 'dmd' working on Linux?

Thanks!
-- Glenn Lewis
Sep 24 2004
next sibling parent "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle mathworks.com> writes:
"Glenn M. Lewis" <Glenn_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cj1lu1$bab$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm thinking about embarking on my first large project in D, and the

 needs to run on Linux and Win32.  Dmd seems to work fine on Win32.  But on
 Linux, I get this:

 dmd: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open

 object file: No such file or directory

 I searched through the archives, and this seems to be a common problem,

 have not found any solution to the problem as of yet.  I also have no

 over the Linux box or any of the /etc, /lib, or /usr directories.  Also, I

 even know what distribution of Linux is on this box.

 Any ideas on getting 'dmd' working on Linux?

I (unfortunately) don't know what exactly needs updating so I just went and got RedHat 9 and that works like a charm. Presumably Fedora Core 2 is also fine. It probably is possible to fix your current box - I just don't know how.
 Thanks!
 -- Glenn Lewis

Sep 24 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent "Thomas Kuehne" <eisvogel users.sourceforge.net> writes:
 dmd: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open

 object file: No such file or directory

 Any ideas on getting 'dmd' working on Linux?

let's play dirty and try: ln -s /usr/lib/libstdc++.so /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
i'm not sure exactly what the problem is.
I know dmd uses gcc. Do you have g++ installed?
What distro do you have?

Glenn M. Lewis wrote:
 I'm thinking about embarking on my first large project in D, and the result
 needs to run on Linux and Win32.  Dmd seems to work fine on Win32.  But on
 Linux, I get this:
 
 dmd: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared
 object file: No such file or directory
 
 I searched through the archives, and this seems to be a common problem, but I
 have not found any solution to the problem as of yet.  I also have no control
 over the Linux box or any of the /etc, /lib, or /usr directories.  Also, I
don't
 even know what distribution of Linux is on this box.
 
 Any ideas on getting 'dmd' working on Linux?
 
 Thanks!
 -- Glenn Lewis
 
 

Sep 24 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent Helmut Leitner <helmut.leitner wikiservice.at> writes:
"Glenn M. Lewis" wrote:
 
 I'm thinking about embarking on my first large project in D, and the result
 needs to run on Linux and Win32.  Dmd seems to work fine on Win32.  But on
 Linux, I get this:
 
 dmd: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared
 object file: No such file or directory
 
 I searched through the archives, and this seems to be a common problem, but I
 have not found any solution to the problem as of yet.  I also have no control
 over the Linux box or any of the /etc, /lib, or /usr directories.  Also, I
don't
 even know what distribution of Linux is on this box.
 
 Any ideas on getting 'dmd' working on Linux?

I'm sure it has to do with an older version of gcc that you use. It's nowhere specified what version you need (Walter?!). I had the same problem with a PC that uses gcc 2.95 On another machine with gcc 3.3 it runs fine. The suggest soft link doesn't help, I tried that. -- Helmut Leitner leitner hls.via.at Graz, Austria www.hls-software.com
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling parent reply John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> writes:
Glenn M. Lewis wrote:
 I'm thinking about embarking on my first large project in D, and the result
 needs to run on Linux and Win32.  Dmd seems to work fine on Win32.  But on
 Linux, I get this:
 
 dmd: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared
 object file: No such file or directory
 
 I searched through the archives, and this seems to be a common problem, but I
 have not found any solution to the problem as of yet.  I also have no control
 over the Linux box or any of the /etc, /lib, or /usr directories.  Also, I
don't
 even know what distribution of Linux is on this box.
 
 Any ideas on getting 'dmd' working on Linux?
 
 Thanks!
 -- Glenn Lewis
 
 

Which gcc version are you using? Open a command prompt and type gcc --version. This may be important to know. Anything 3.4'ish seems to need a c++ compatibility library compiled in separately to support compilation of pre-3.4 based c++ programs. I'm not quite sure of the specifics of this issue, but I've had it happen before, I think. I just can't remember how I fixed it. At the very least, though, in order to get to the bottom of the issue, you'll have to give a little more information: linux distribution, gcc version, etc. Later, John
Sep 24 2004
parent reply Glenn M. Lewis <Glenn_member pathlink.com> writes:
I believe the distribution is RedHat 7, although I could easily be mistaken.
I've got 3 flavors of gcc available to me:
% which6 gcc
/usr/site/bin/gcc
/usr/bin/gcc
/usr/local/bin/gcc
% /usr/site/bin/gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.1
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

% /usr/bin/gcc --version
2.96
% /usr/local/bin/gcc --version
2.7.2.3

It looks like maybe I should build my own private version of gcc 3.4.
-- Glenn

Which gcc version are you using?  Open a command prompt and type gcc 
--version.

This may be important to know.  Anything 3.4'ish seems to need a c++ 
compatibility library compiled in separately to support compilation of 
pre-3.4 based c++ programs.  I'm not quite sure of the specifics of this 
issue, but I've had it happen before, I think.  I just can't remember 
how I fixed it.

At the very least, though, in order to get to the bottom of the issue, 
you'll have to give a little more information: linux distribution, gcc 
version, etc.

Later,

John

Sep 24 2004
next sibling parent reply Glenn M. Lewis <Glenn_member pathlink.com> writes:
OK, I found a fully-built version of GCC 3.3 on the system so I did this:

% echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH 
/usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib:/lib

Now, I try to run 'dmd':
% dmd
dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by dmd)
% ldd dmd/bin/dmd
dmd/bin/dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by
dmd/bin/dmd)
libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x40018000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x400cf000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x4020e000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40231000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

OK, so I'm stuck again.  Any ideas?
-- Glenn

In article <cj26m5$jf5$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Glenn M. Lewis says...
I believe the distribution is RedHat 7, although I could easily be mistaken.
I've got 3 flavors of gcc available to me:
% which6 gcc
/usr/site/bin/gcc
/usr/bin/gcc
/usr/local/bin/gcc
% /usr/site/bin/gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.1
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

% /usr/bin/gcc --version
2.96
% /usr/local/bin/gcc --version
2.7.2.3

It looks like maybe I should build my own private version of gcc 3.4.
-- Glenn

Which gcc version are you using?  Open a command prompt and type gcc 
--version.

This may be important to know.  Anything 3.4'ish seems to need a c++ 
compatibility library compiled in separately to support compilation of 
pre-3.4 based c++ programs.  I'm not quite sure of the specifics of this 
issue, but I've had it happen before, I think.  I just can't remember 
how I fixed it.

At the very least, though, in order to get to the bottom of the issue, 
you'll have to give a little more information: linux distribution, gcc 
version, etc.

Later,

John


Sep 24 2004
next sibling parent Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Glenn M. Lewis wrote:
 OK, I found a fully-built version of GCC 3.3 on the system so I did this:
 
 % echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH 
 /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib:/lib
 
 Now, I try to run 'dmd':
 % dmd
 dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by dmd)
 % ldd dmd/bin/dmd
 dmd/bin/dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by
 dmd/bin/dmd)
 libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x40018000)
 libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x400cf000)
 libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x4020e000)
 libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40231000)
 /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
 
 OK, so I'm stuck again.  Any ideas?

from http://packages.debian.org/testing/base/libstdc++5: libstdc++.so.5 contains the GNU Standard C++ Library v3, which is a complete rewrite from the previous v2, which was included up to g++-2.95. The first version of libstdc++-v3 appeared in g++-3.0. Did you have gcc 3.1 as well? Does `find / -name "libstdc++.so.5"` give any more libraries? Try adding more of these paths to LD_LIBRARY_PATH... Alternatively you can try downloading the libs and installing them in ~/lib for example, and set LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. Good luck! Bastiaan.
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> writes:
Glenn M. Lewis wrote:
 OK, I found a fully-built version of GCC 3.3 on the system so I did this:
 
 % echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH 
 /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib:/lib
 
 Now, I try to run 'dmd':
 % dmd
 dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by dmd)
 % ldd dmd/bin/dmd
 dmd/bin/dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by
 dmd/bin/dmd)
 libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x40018000)
 libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x400cf000)
 libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x4020e000)
 libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40231000)
 /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
 
 OK, so I'm stuck again.  Any ideas?
 -- Glenn
 

Ah, so you have a 3.3 on your system. You'll have to make sure you've got (or compiled) a recent glibc (the Gnu C library) to go with it (I believe it's separate from the gcc distribution). It doesn't appear you do for some reason. Since you are using an old Redhat distribution (7), it's likely that only an old glibc version is present. Having gcc 3.3 installed doesn't guarantee that a newer glibc is installed also. As to how to get an updated glibc, I'm sure there's a rpm package somewhere that can be downloaded for Redhat. Might be a good time for google. Sorry, I don't have any links at present. Good luck, John
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling parent John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> writes:
Glenn M. Lewis wrote:
 OK, I found a fully-built version of GCC 3.3 on the system so I did this:
 
 % echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH 
 /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib:/lib
 
 Now, I try to run 'dmd':
 % dmd
 dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by dmd)
 % ldd dmd/bin/dmd
 dmd/bin/dmd: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by
 dmd/bin/dmd)
 libstdc++.so.5 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libstdc++.so.5 (0x40018000)
 libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x400cf000)
 libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x4020e000)
 libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/site/pkgs/gcc/3.3/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x40231000)
 /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
 
 OK, so I'm stuck again.  Any ideas?
 -- Glenn

Just curious... how did you activate gcc 3.3 as the primary gcc for the system. Did you have to install it? I don't see how you did so above. The dmd program obviously has dependencies for some basic "recent" libraries. Some of these come with the gcc installation. Others may have to be installed separately (like glibc, I think). If you can find a way to fulfill those dmd dependencies like Bastiaan suggested, you should be able to get it working. It's still not clear which gcc version is active when you are executing dmd. Sorry that I can't help more. Ferreting out these dependency issues sometimes can be quite confusing.
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> writes:
Glenn M. Lewis wrote:
 I believe the distribution is RedHat 7, although I could easily be mistaken.
 I've got 3 flavors of gcc available to me:
 % which6 gcc
 /usr/site/bin/gcc
 /usr/bin/gcc
 /usr/local/bin/gcc
 % /usr/site/bin/gcc --version
 gcc (GCC) 3.1
 Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
 warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 
 % /usr/bin/gcc --version
 2.96
 % /usr/local/bin/gcc --version
 2.7.2.3
 
 It looks like maybe I should build my own private version of gcc 3.4.
 -- Glenn
 

Well... Gcc 3.4 probably wouldn't fix the problem (it's not considered completely stable yet anyway). Currently, I believe, gcc 3.3.x is considered stable, so perhaps getting a full version of that installed would be beneficial.
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling parent reply "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
Fedora Core 2?

Using Red Hat 7 is like people using Win 95.


"Glenn M. Lewis" <Glenn_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:cj26m5$jf5$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I believe the distribution is RedHat 7, although I could easily be

 I've got 3 flavors of gcc available to me:
 % which6 gcc
 /usr/site/bin/gcc
 /usr/bin/gcc
 /usr/local/bin/gcc
 % /usr/site/bin/gcc --version
 gcc (GCC) 3.1
 Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
 warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR

 % /usr/bin/gcc --version
 2.96
 % /usr/local/bin/gcc --version
 2.7.2.3

 It looks like maybe I should build my own private version of gcc 3.4.
 -- Glenn

Which gcc version are you using?  Open a command prompt and type gcc
--version.

This may be important to know.  Anything 3.4'ish seems to need a c++
compatibility library compiled in separately to support compilation of
pre-3.4 based c++ programs.  I'm not quite sure of the specifics of this
issue, but I've had it happen before, I think.  I just can't remember
how I fixed it.

At the very least, though, in order to get to the bottom of the issue,
you'll have to give a little more information: linux distribution, gcc
version, etc.

Later,

John


Sep 24 2004
next sibling parent h3r3tic <h3r3tic dev.null> writes:
Phill wrote:
 Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
 Fedora Core 2?

Yip, DMD works fine on FC2. Using KDevelop for the IDE :] Heh, I'm actually playing with that stuff thru VNC :>
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ant <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> writes:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:41:43 +1000, Phill wrote:

 Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
 Fedora Core 2?
 
 Using Red Hat 7 is like people using Win 95.

don't say that. windows was trash until windows 2000 (I never used NT) I've been using linux since 1.xx with great satisfaction, and that is before Red Hat was even around. right now I have slackware 9.0 beta and no reason to upgrade (10.0 is out - at least). I did upgrade, X11, the gcc, GTK... every couple of years I try the redhat distribution but I've always went back to slackware. Ant
Sep 24 2004
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
In article <pan.2004.09.25.02.14.46.891155 yahoo.ca>, Ant says...
windows was trash until windows 2000 (I never used NT)

NT 3.51 was pretty nice for a server OS. Everything went through an emulation layer so it was darn near impossible to crash. Obviously, this also hurt performance which is why they dropped the feature in NT4. Though I can't remember offhand if early versions of NT needed a reboot when patches were applied. Still, I'd have picked OS/2 over NT any day ;) Sean
Sep 24 2004
parent John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:
 In article <pan.2004.09.25.02.14.46.891155 yahoo.ca>, Ant says...
 
windows was trash until windows 2000 (I never used NT)

NT 3.51 was pretty nice for a server OS. Everything went through an emulation layer so it was darn near impossible to crash. Obviously, this also hurt performance which is why they dropped the feature in NT4. Though I can't remember offhand if early versions of NT needed a reboot when patches were applied. Still, I'd have picked OS/2 over NT any day ;) Sean

OS/2 was cool for it's time. I'd have preferred it too if hadn't been so expensive. I used it up until OS/2 Warp 4. The most undelightful memory surrounding my OS/2 experience was the $450 CAN price tag (I still can't believe I spent that much on it!) BTW... eComStation still trys to carry the OS/2 banner onward... Later, John
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> writes:
Ant wrote:
 On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:41:43 +1000, Phill wrote:
 
 
Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
Fedora Core 2?

Using Red Hat 7 is like people using Win 95.

don't say that. windows was trash until windows 2000 (I never used NT)

Heh, yeah, that's true. The analogy doesn't apply to Linux in quite the same way. Linux has always been powerful, yet still only popular to a certain type of computer user.
 I've been using linux since 1.xx with great satisfaction,
 and that is before Red Hat was even around.

Same here (well, off and on). I actually started playing with it pre 1.0. But I can't say that I've used Linux with great satisfaction all these years; although, it is beginning to grow on me again. Back then it was a novelty, as well as a desperate attempt to escape the limitations of the 16-bit DOS world. I was incensed that the computer world was being handicapped by a monopoly of 16-bit software even though 32-bit 386's were the norm back then. Linux satisfied the craving for true 32-bit at the time, but I eventually got frustrated with complexities of administering the system. Today Linux is still complicated and administration of it remains tedious, yet the application base now available makes using it much more worthwhile. Also, by now, I've learned enough about Linux to keep moderately out of trouble :-(. I still think that Linux suffers from a nasty case of script bloat, but I guess that's the way of the *nix. I still rate reading Linux scripts as one of the most confusing activities in computerdom.
 right now I have slackware 9.0 beta and no reason to
 upgrade (10.0 is out - at least).
 I did upgrade, X11, the gcc, GTK...

I started out with slackware in the pre 1.x era. I think it was one of the earliest of distributions available. I liked it back then, but haven't used it for many years now.
 every couple of years I try the redhat distribution but
 I've always went back to slackware.
 
 Ant
 

I've tried Redhat periodically as well. You can't really go wrong with it, but I've found that I prefer to have a little more elbow room in a linux system. Gentoo has been my system of choice for the last couple of years. I've also tried Mandrake; it seems to be improving, but I found earlier systems too buggy, so I've been hesitant to keep trying more recent releases. How's that for off topic! - John
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent "Phill" <phill pacific.net.au> writes:
"Ant" <duitoolkit yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.09.25.02.14.46.891155 yahoo.ca...
 On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:41:43 +1000, Phill wrote:

 Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
 Fedora Core 2?

 Using Red Hat 7 is like people using Win 95.

don't say that. windows was trash until windows 2000 (I never used NT)

Sorry I will put it another way. The later versions of Windows are a better form of trash than the older ones :o)) Also the later versions of Red Hat are better than previous ones, I dont see why one would prefer to stick with version 7. I am not even sure that Windows is trash, I only like to use Linux because there are more toys :o))
 I've been using linux since 1.xx with great satisfaction,
 and that is before Red Hat was even around.

 right now I have slackware 9.0 beta and no reason to
 upgrade (10.0 is out - at least).
 I did upgrade, X11, the gcc, GTK...

I havent tried Slackware. Phill.
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling parent teqDruid <me teqdruid.com> writes:
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 22:14:48 -0400, Ant wrote:

  and no reason to
 upgrade (10.0 is out - at least).

You'll change your tune once you try Gentoo! Mwahahahaha!
Sep 24 2004
prev sibling parent reply Bastiaan Veelo <Bastiaan.N.Veelo ntnu.no> writes:
Phill wrote:
 Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
 Fedora Core 2?

Because Glenn wrote:
 I also have no control over the Linux box or any of the /etc, /lib,
 or /usr directories.  Also, I don't even know what distribution of
 Linux is on this box.

But I agree, being in control would be the best. Just recover your old PC that you thought had become obsolete three years ago, download an installation CD and be your own master. I would go for Debian Sarge with the new installer http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/, but if you ask us, you will probably get as many different recommendations as Linux users on this list. Debian (or a Debian-based distribution) will make system maintenance a charm after you have installed it. But wait! You may even get away by booting off a live Knoppix CD on your current XP-or-whatever-box. It may be well worth checking this out http://www.knoppix.org/. Cheers, Bastiaan.
Sep 25 2004
next sibling parent clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 Phill wrote:
 
 Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
 Fedora Core 2?

Because Glenn wrote: > I also have no control over the Linux box or any of the /etc, /lib, > or /usr directories. Also, I don't even know what distribution of > Linux is on this box. But I agree, being in control would be the best. Just recover your old PC that you thought had become obsolete three years ago, download an installation CD and be your own master. I would go for Debian Sarge with the new installer http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/, but if you ask us, you will probably get as many different recommendations as Linux users on this list. Debian (or a Debian-based distribution) will make system maintenance a charm after you have installed it. But wait! You may even get away by booting off a live Knoppix CD on your current XP-or-whatever-box. It may be well worth checking this out http://www.knoppix.org/. Cheers, Bastiaan.

I'd recommend Mepis (www.mepis.org). Mepis is a debian based desktop live cd that's meant to be installed. #1) pop in cd and it boots up to kde (root password is root) #2) click 'install' icon on desktop, which takes you through the install #3) reboot. take cd out. then apt-get any software you need. It's the easiest way to get a debian system up and running.
Sep 25 2004
prev sibling parent John Reimer <brk_6502 NOSP_AM.yahoo.com> writes:
Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
 Phill wrote:
 
 Why dont you update to Red Hat 9? Or
 Fedora Core 2?

Because Glenn wrote: > I also have no control over the Linux box or any of the /etc, /lib, > or /usr directories. Also, I don't even know what distribution of > Linux is on this box. But I agree, being in control would be the best. Just recover your old PC that you thought had become obsolete three years ago, download an installation CD and be your own master. I would go for Debian Sarge with the new installer http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/, but if you ask us, you will probably get as many different recommendations as Linux users on this list. Debian (or a Debian-based distribution) will make system maintenance a charm after you have installed it. But wait! You may even get away by booting off a live Knoppix CD on your current XP-or-whatever-box. It may be well worth checking this out http://www.knoppix.org/. Cheers, Bastiaan.

I've heard a lot of good things about debian. Can't go wrong with trying that one either; perhaps it's an even better choice than a Redhat-based distributions (Fedora or Mandrake).
Sep 25 2004