comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive - RDF feed
type: channel
description: Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado
items: IDL for LINUX
items: Re: IDL for LINUX
items: Re: idl for linux

IDL for LINUX
type: item
description: For your Info, this was part of the message I received with my Mac upgrade notice for IDL 4.0.1: > IDL 4.0.1 will also be available for downloading via the Internet in > approximately 2 - 4 weeks. You can download IDL via anonymous FTP from > boulder.colorado.edu. IDL downloading instructions are located in the > pub/idl directory. > > Sincerely, > Steve Roch > Director of Technical Support > P.S. PC users - want to try IDL for Linux? Send e-mail to "info@rsinc.com" > and ask for the IDL for Linux demo kit. Our Unix CD-ROM includes the Linux > version of IDL with special installation instructions. I seem to remember some folks asking about the availablilty of IDL under Linux. -- Tim Wilson IAS Precision Optics Mail Code 03115, 1-601-KO Phone: (716) 722-3586, FAX: (716) 588-4939
creator: wilsont
date: 1995-09-18T07:00:00-00:00

Re: IDL for LINUX
type: item
description: In article <45bulh$m7h@news4.digex.net> Mary Ruth Keller <keller@tesla.jhuapl.edu> writes: [intro stuff deleted] > I have run this model on five different machines and five different > operating systems: (1) A 33 MHz 486 with 16 Meg running MS-DOS or MS-WINDOWS > 3.1 with 8 Meg (yes, I have been using the alpha version of IDL for DOS), (2) a > 66 MHz 486 with 16 Meg running MS-DOS, (3) a 170 MHz DEC-Alpha with 64 Meg > running OPEN-VMS, (4) a 99 MHz HP9000/735 (RISC) with 144 Meg running HP/UX, > and (5) the DX4-100 with 32 Meg running LINUX I mentioned earlier. I have put > the 33 MHZ machines in the same category because the program took the same > length of time for both. For speeds, I got the following: > (1) 33 MHz - 53 minutes > (2) 66 MHz - 40 minutes > (3) DEC-Alpha - 8 minutes 25 seconds > (4) HP-RISC - 4 minutes 25 seconds > (5) LINUX - 9 minutes 50 seconds Could you tell us what version numbers of IDL you were using on each machine and OS? Also, what are the memory demands of your program, and how frequently does it produce graphical or disk output? > The DEC-Alpha should have been faster than this. I suspect OPEN-VMS is what > slowed it down. I agree, the Alpha should have been MUCH faster than it was. Beats me why it wasn't. > For all the machines tested, I made sure my program was the > only active user process during the test. So, if one is stuck trying to Science > on > no money like I am, LINUX sure makes life alot easier! > P.S. Since the paper has been published, the model is in the public domain, > should anyone be interested in running it for a test. I think I might be interested. I'll get in touch with you directly when I'm ready to give it a try. Thanks for the post. Stephen S. Kerr skerr@ucsd.edu
creator: kerr
date: 1995-10-11T07:00:00-00:00

Re: IDL for LINUX
type: item
description: Hugh, No, the code does not use large arrays, in fact I use sequential calculations inside double nested for loops. I originally developed this code on the Alpha IDL for DOS, where large arrays will kill you altogether. I have two requests for my code, one by someone like yourself, who is concerned that the DEC-Alpha has been poorly configured. The other is a radar guy who just wants my model! Our system manager for the DEC-Alpha is an engineer wearing several hats, so I suspect the DEC machine could be tweeked. As to your last comment, I'm not really concerned about starting an OS war either, but I was very impressed with the leap in performance LINUX provided for my unfunded, but beloved research. Thanks for the interest, Mary Ruth Keller
creator: Mary Ruth Keller
date: 1995-10-11T07:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: At present (version 4.0.1), IDL for Linux doesn't have a license manager. It sounds to me like whomever writes their license software was very slow in porting. Right now you get a 180 day "test" version, using genver. This can be fun when you have a lot of Linux nodes. The current version also has some other limitations, but most things seem to work well. Version 5 is supposed to have a functional license manager. - Tony Ferro Matt Delaney (mdelaney@bermuda.ucd.ie) wrote: : I am an UNIX IDL user, but am interested in purchasing IDL for LINUX. : Does the LINUX version run a license manager? My supplier has quoted me : a price for a LINUX IDL installation, but didn't know the technical : details about number of user restrictions, etc. Do you have to buy : individual user licenses? : Thanks in advance. : ____________________________________________________________ ____________ : Matt Delaney E-mail: mdelaney@bermuda.ucd.ie : Space Science & Advanced Materials tel: +353 1 706 2202 (work) : Physics Dept. 497 7480 (home) : University College Dublin fax: 283 7275 : Belfield : Dublin 4 IRELAND
creator: tferro
date: 1997-01-10T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: Matt Delaney wrote: > > I am an UNIX IDL user, but am interested in purchasing IDL for LINUX. > Does the LINUX version run a license manager? My supplier has quoted me > a price for a LINUX IDL installation, but didn't know the technical > details about number of user restrictions, etc. Do you have to buy > individual user licenses? > I believe that IDL 5.0 for Linux will use a license manager. -- /*********************************************************** ********/ Phil Williams, Ph.D. Research Instructor Children's Hospital Medical Center "One man gathers what Imaging Research Center another man spills..." 3333 Burnet Ave. -The Grateful Dead Cincinnati, OH 45229 email: williams@irc.chmcc.org URL: http://scuttle.chmcc.org/~williams/ /*********************************************************** ********/
creator: Phil Williams
date: 1997-01-10T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: Matt Delaney wrote: > > I am an UNIX IDL user, but am interested in purchasing IDL for LINUX. > Does the LINUX version run a license manager? My supplier has quoted me > a price for a LINUX IDL installation, but didn't know the technical > details about number of user restrictions, etc. Do you have to buy > individual user licenses? The software is node locked, so that it can only run on a single CPU, but can be invoked multiple times on that CPU. -- Bart Hoekstra Phone: (303)278-8700 Fax: (303)278-0789 Blackhawk Geometrics bart@blackhawkgeo.com
creator: bart hoekstra
date: 1997-01-10T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: Do you know if it has a hardware decoder (dongle) like the PC version'
creator: R. Bauer
date: 1997-01-11T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: In article <32D64D99.3131B9F1@bermuda.ucd.ie>, Matt Delaney wrote: > I am an UNIX IDL user, but am interested in purchasing IDL for LINUX. > Does the LINUX version run a license manager? My supplier has quoted me > a price for a LINUX IDL installation, but didn't know the technical > details about number of user restrictions, etc. Do you have to buy > individual user licenses? No user restrictions, but it is a single node installation. No license manager either. You use the genver program and call up RSI technical support to get a number of the day. After this it will work for 180 days, and I guess you can call tech support again after this time is up to get another 180 days. Supposedly this problem will be gone in 5.0. Some caveats to IDL for Linux: When I reboot my clock does not get set correctly, and unless I reset the clock before running IDL, it balks when I try to start it. Also, CALL_EXTERNAL does not work for the Linux version. FWIW- I have been having good success the last few weeks running IDL 4.0.1 on my Linux box with RedHat4.0 and kernel 2.0.27. Good luck. Alan
creator: amunter
date: 1997-01-11T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: Alan E. Munter wrote: > > Some caveats to IDL for Linux: > When I reboot my clock does not get set correctly, and unless I reset > the clock before running IDL, it balks when I try to start it. Also, > CALL_EXTERNAL does not work for the Linux version. > > FWIW- I have been having good success the last few weeks running IDL > 4.0.1 on my Linux box with RedHat4.0 and kernel 2.0.27. > > Good luck. > > Alan I've also had good success with IDL 4.0.1 on Linux. In fact I get time_test results of 3.73 on my PentiumPro 200MHz machine. See the Windows NT thread for a comparison where someone is getting 4.0. These are some of the fastest times I've seen, and that includes the latest HP workstations costing many times (if not orders of magnitude) more. Has anyone made a more complete comparison? Is the fast time because of the better integer performance on the PentiumPro and because IDL is interpreted???? David
creator: David Schmidt
date: 1997-01-17T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: Matt Delaney (mdelaney@bermuda.ucd.ie) wrote: : I am an UNIX IDL user, but am interested in purchasing IDL for LINUX. : Does the LINUX version run a license manager? My supplier has quoted me : a price for a LINUX IDL installation, but didn't know the technical : details about number of user restrictions, etc. Do you have to buy : individual user licenses? : I am not sure if this is relevant, but PVWave for Linux uses the license manager without any problem. However, I am running the manager on a SPARCstation and I don't know if it would work with the manager under Linux. The other interesting fact is that floating licenses for Linux cost about half those for SPARCstations. We use our two SPARC licenses for both the SPARCs and Linux boxes, so perhaps we have paid over the odds (although we got the licenses before the Linux version came out). I am told that if you buy Linux licenses there is nothing to stop them from floating on the SPARCstation and that if we wanted to buy any of these we would have to sign an undertaking that they wouldn't be used on the SPARC. It all seems a bit daft to me. A SPARC license does the same thing as a Linux license, so why charge twice as much? -- Richard Simpson Farnborough, Hants, Uk Fax: 01252 392118 rsimpson@ewrcsdra.demon.co.uk
creator: rsimpson
date: 1997-01-22T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: In article <5c5l3f$3kl@ewrcsdra.demon.co.uk>, rsimpson@ewrcsdra.demon.co.uk (Richard Simpson) writes: [..snip..] |> The other interesting fact is that floating licenses for Linux cost about half |> those for SPARCstations. We use our two SPARC licenses for both the SPARCs and |> Linux boxes, so perhaps we have paid over the odds (although we got the licenses |> before the Linux version came out). I am told that if you buy Linux licenses |> there is nothing to stop them from floating on the SPARCstation and that if we |> wanted to buy any of these we would have to sign an undertaking that they |> wouldn't be used on the SPARC. It all seems a bit daft to me. A SPARC license |> does the same thing as a Linux license, so why charge twice as much? Bzzt, wrong question, the correct one is: A Linux license does the same thing as a SPARC license, so why charge only half the price. The answer to that, I hope, is clear. Please let us keep low-cost licenses for "private" machines with decent operating systems! If that means signing an agreement not to use the licenses on "professional" machines, then so be it! If you want workstation licenses, buy them, instead of jeopardizing the affordability of IDL for private use. I wonder, though, has anyone tried using the "office" floating licenses at home, being hooked up through the net? Stein Vidar
creator: steinhh
date: 1997-01-23T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan (steinhh@rigil.uio.no) wrote: : |> It all seems a bit daft to me. A SPARC license : |> does the same thing as a Linux license, so why charge twice as much? : : Bzzt, wrong question, the correct one is: : : A Linux license does the same thing as a SPARC license, so why : charge only half the price. : : The answer to that, I hope, is clear. Please let us keep low-cost : licenses for "private" machines with decent operating systems! : If that means signing an agreement not to use the licenses on : "professional" machines, then so be it! If you want workstation : licenses, buy them, instead of jeopardizing the affordability of : IDL for private use. It may be that I have missed the point, or we may have a translation problem here, but I don't understand any of the points which Stein is trying to make. Let me try to be clear. 1) I don't think that I ever stated that I WANT workstation licenses. I have all the SPARC licenses I could want. If I need more seats then I will buy more PCs and more Linux licenses. In the medium term I would like to get rid of the SPARCs entirely and save on their maintenance costs. Best of all, would be for VNI to bring out a Linux for Alpha version. I would then be happy to get an Alpha motherboard and run it on that. 2) I have no desire to jeopardize the affordability of anything. If my earlier posting gave the impression that I wanted to see the Linux price increased to match the SPARC price then I am sorry that it was not clear enough. Why should I wish anyone (including myself) to pay more for their licenses? I do not have shares in VNI. 3) Finally, let me make it clear that I agree that Linux is a "decent operating system". I would rather use it than Solaris any day. I hope that clarifies the situation. -- Richard Simpson Farnborough, Hants, Uk Fax: 01252 392118 rsimpson@ewrcsdra.demon.co.uk
creator: rsimpson
date: 1997-02-02T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: In article <5d2lvj$2i6@ewrcsdra.demon.co.uk>, rsimpson@ewrcsdra.demon.co.uk (Richard Simpson) writes: |> Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan (steinhh@rigil.uio.no) wrote: [...] |> : |> : The answer to that, I hope, is clear. Please let us keep low-cost |> : licenses for "private" machines with decent operating systems! |> : If that means signing an agreement not to use the licenses on |> : "professional" machines, then so be it! If you want workstation |> : licenses, buy them, instead of jeopardizing the affordability of |> : IDL for private use. |> |> It may be that I have missed the point, or we may have a translation problem |> here, but I don't understand any of the points which Stein is trying to make. |> In retrospect I see that my post was badly worded, and quite easily misunderstood as a "flame". I apologize for this. The "you" in the above paragraph was meant to refer to the general public, not you in particular, Richard. My assumptions were that linux licenses are cheap because they are aimed at the "private" market, while workstation licenses are aimed at the "professional" market. Whether this is sensible given the current developments is questionable, though. I just wanted to point out that everyone should be careful not to abuse (and thereby risk loosing) the cheap "private" licenses, even though they might be identical. Regards, Stein Vidar Haugan
creator: steinhh
date: 1997-02-03T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: I haven't been following this recently . . . So let me throw out a question that has probably already been answered: Is there any way to get a copy of Linux IDL (running great in demo mode under FreeBSD 2.2-beta) to request and use a network floating license from a Sun/Solaris license server? Thanks. larry-granroth@uiowa.edu
creator: ljg
date: 1997-02-09T08:00:00-00:00

Re: idl for linux
type: item
description: In article <E5BDEu.39p@sysadm.physics.uiowa.edu>, ljg@space.physics.uiowa.edu (Larry Granroth) writes: > Is there any way to get a copy of Linux IDL (running great in demo mode > under FreeBSD 2.2-beta) to request and use a network floating license > from a Sun/Solaris license server? Currently (4.0.1), no. The upcoming 5.0 for Linux is rumoured to do so. Peter -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peter "Pit" Suetterlin http://www.uni-sw.gwdg.de/~pit Universitaets-Sternwarte Goettingen Tel.: +49 551 39-5048 pit@uni-sw.gwdg.de -- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * -- * ...-- * -- Come and see the stars! http://www.kis.uni-freiburg.de/~ps/SFB Sternfreunde Breisgau e.V. Tel.: +49 7641 3492 ____________________________________________________________ ______________
creator: pit
date: 1997-02-11T08:00:00-00:00