Re: Linux sockets
Kat wrote:
> I think there is a use for this on *nix, as i asked for it, and someone else
> did
> also, and Robert hasto be using it in the email filter service he runs, and
> anything one does on a reliable shell hosting company will be on some form
> of *nix. I know i have seen httpd written for tcl, but darned if i can find
> them
> now. I have used perl to do irc mirroring, but i don't want to nuke the shell
> or
> host by using trial and error to get a http proxy on a *nix shell on the other
>
> side of the Atlantic Ocean.
> I simply won't be responcible for other's losing the
> use of the box because i want to experiment, and i can't have someone
> standing by to restart it.
You shouldn't be able to nuke a Linux box unless you are root or a hacker 
> The problem for those of us on windoze isn't the
> generic code, it's the OS-specific interface: how to bind to sockets, release
> them, send to and recieve from them. And remote admin'ing them, how to
> start them, verify we have permissions to use the port, and anything else
> different on *nix.
I don't think Unix sockets are that much different from Winsock 1.0.
Winsock 1.0 was designed to be compatabile with BSD sockets. I am comparing
some Unix code vs winsock.h now and at least the basic functions like connect()
are same.
> I did try to run a box on RedHat for about 6 months. Rebooting *nix every few
> minutes, when the win95 box kept on chugging for weeks, wasn't my vision
> of nirvana. I finally pulled the harddrive and set it on the shelf, where it
> is
> currently doing a much better job collecting dust than it ever did as a puter
> OS.
If you want to test your Linux code, you could try some smaller simple distro,
(I like Basic linux, it boots from 2 floppies)
or the Cygwin enviroment.
I don't use Linux as that much, but I never managed to lock it. Perhaps it is an
hardware incompality you may report?
Martin
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
