Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 00:04:23 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 661 ************************************************** Monday 05 December 2005 Number 661 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Zope : Christian Hennecke" 2 Making a bootable USB flash drive : John Poltorak 3 Re: ZLIB : John Poltorak 4 Re: ZLIB : Dave Yeo" **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:49:58 +0100 (CET) From: "Christian Hennecke" Subject: Re: Zope On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:16:00 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> >> >Is anyone else interested in using Zope? >> >> >> >> I am - as a CMS. However, it seems all very complicated to me compared >> >> to other solutions. >> > >> >It is very complicated, although you should see it as a challenge :-) >> >> Well, I'm doing web design for a living and so there is a certain >> "return of investment" threshold. Currently, things like Joomla or >> Typo3 seem more interesting from a business view point. Also, Typo 3 is >> documented *way* better. I know that Zope can be more that just a CMS >> but you have to look at what your customers want. > >Which of these do you prefer? I take it they are all PHP based... Yes, they are, plus MySQL. (Typo 3 also uses some libraries and tools that have to exist in "native" format.) It's not a matter of preference. Joomla and Typo 3 have different target groups. Typo 3 is really *huge*. I wouldn't use it for small sites. That would be like writing a small note like "don't forget to buy milk" with StarOffice. Christian Hennecke **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 19:27:27 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Making a bootable USB flash drive Anyone know if there is any easy way to make a USB flash drive bootable? Preferably from a Windows system. -- John **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 19:37:09 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: ZLIB On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 06:05:07PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: > On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 12:09:31 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: > > > > > > >Has anyone built the latest ZLIB on OS/2? > > Built it yesterday with GCC 3.3.5 (and just now with GCC 2.8.1). I'll include the makefile > and def files, rename whichever you need to zos2.def. What is the best way of overriding hard coded paths? > I have a bunch of others which unluckily I've lost track of but this one is good enough > and compatible with most versions of z.dll Does either z.dll built using 3.3.5 or 2.8.1 usable with any apps that need it? > Dave -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:19:14 -0800 From: "Dave Yeo" Subject: Re: ZLIB On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 19:37:09 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 06:05:07PM -0800, Dave Yeo wrote: >> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 12:09:31 +0000, John Poltorak wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >Has anyone built the latest ZLIB on OS/2? >> >> Built it yesterday with GCC 3.3.5 (and just now with GCC 2.8.1). I'll include the makefile >> and def files, rename whichever you need to zos2.def. > >What is the best way of overriding hard coded paths? Editing the Makefile.emx and changing the prefix and exec_prefix lines. > >> I have a bunch of others which unluckily I've lost track of but this one is good enough >> and compatible with most versions of z.dll > > >Does either z.dll built using 3.3.5 or 2.8.1 usable with any apps that >need it? From my limited testng either one seems to work fine. The static libs should only be used with whichever libc created them according to the Innotek_libc docs. Also I think that you have to use the right import lib when compiling. Dave