Home > Archive > Cobol > February 2005 > Compiler for old Linux
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Compiler for old Linux
|
|
| Johannes 2005-02-17, 3:55 pm |
| Got an account on an old Linux box with kernel version 2.0.30. I want
my sysop to install a cobol compiler on that machine. He says there is
none available running on that system at a resonable prize.
Though I don't wanna give up yet. Probably you know one?
| |
| Richard 2005-02-17, 3:55 pm |
| > kernel version 2.0.30.
I've seen more modern version in museums ;-)
Actually I do have a couple of machine here running 2.0.xx kernel
because it runs nicely on old 486s or P100s using it for a Freesco
firewall, LRP print server, or PocketLinux for a terminal server. I
was running a 386 20MHz as my Freesco firewall and gateway but it broke
and was upgraded to a P133.
You could try using OpenCobol or TinyCobol, which are free, but you
will probably find that they require a 2.4 kernel.
Is there any particular reason why you haven't loaded a more recent
version of Linux ? Its like you are running MS-DOS 3.1 and want to run
Win32 software.
| |
| Johannes 2005-02-18, 3:55 pm |
| "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote :
>
> I've seen more modern version in museums ;-)
;-)
> You could try using OpenCobol or TinyCobol, which are free, but you
> will probably find that they require a 2.4 kernel.
Yes, that's the problem of OpenCobol.
> Is there any particular reason why you haven't loaded a more recent
> version of Linux ?
Several, yes. First, it's not my computer ;-) Second, there are lots
of individual modifications done to system programs over the years by
different programmers. Very hard to update without losing them.
> Its like you are running MS-DOS 3.1 and want to run Win32 software.
Well, the is the IBM System/36 for example, old and slow, but capable
of compiling cobol sources and running them ;-) So I guess cobol does
not necessarily be too much for an ancient environment.
| |
| Richard 2005-02-18, 3:55 pm |
| > but capable of compiling cobol sources and running them ;-)
Because someone actually developed a Cobol compiler for that system.
If no one developed a Cobol compiler for Linux 2.0 kernel then you
cannot have one. As a counter example the iMac is a modern machine but
(afaik) there is no Cobol compiler for it.
There is no correlation between 'ancient' or 'modern' and 'Cobol
available', only between 'someone implemented it' and 'Cobol
available'.
Of course the source for OpenCobol and TinyCobol and all the software
that it depends on is available so you could always try to implement it
yourself.
> First, it's not my computer ;-)
Linux has a very low resource requirement. You should be able to find
an old 500MHz or so machine in a dumpster that bloated Windows would
stagger on but would be perfectly usable with a recent Linux loaded
from a free CD.
| |
| Bernard Giroud 2005-02-19, 8:55 am |
| Johannes a écrit :
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote :
>
>
>
> ;-)
>
>
>
>
> Yes, that's the problem of OpenCobol.
>
>
Where exactly do you have a problem ?
There should be no dependences on the kernel itself.
The only ones should be against the libraries (gmp for OC and libdb for
bothe OC and TC. So starting from the sources you should be able to
get one of them working.
>
>
> Several, yes. First, it's not my computer ;-) Second, there are lots
> of individual modifications done to system programs over the years by
> different programmers. Very hard to update without losing them.
>
>
>
>
> Well, the is the IBM System/36 for example, old and slow, but capable
> of compiling cobol sources and running them ;-) So I guess cobol does
> not necessarily be too much for an ancient environment.
--
Bernard Giroud
Open Source COBOL Tools Developer
| |
| Johannes 2005-02-21, 3:55 pm |
| Bernard Giroud <bgiroud2@free.fr> wrote:
> Johannes a écrit :
>
> Where exactly do you have a problem ?
> There should be no dependences on the kernel itself.
Yes, I know. However, IIRC they want three libraries to be updated to
the almost recent versions, and the risk to screw up the whole system
this way is too risky to us.
| |
| Johannes 2005-02-21, 3:55 pm |
| "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> If no one developed a Cobol compiler for Linux 2.0 kernel then you
> cannot have one.
So you don't know. Why are you then trying to proselytize me?
There are compilers running on this kernel, but both I found so far
were far too expensive for me. That's why I were asking if someone
knows another one.
I were not asking if I should buy another machine, install another
kernel or anything else.
| |
| Johannes 2005-02-24, 3:55 pm |
| Bernard Giroud <bgiroud2@free.fr> wrote:
> Johannes a écrit :
>
> Where exactly do you have a problem ?
> There should be no dependences on the kernel itself.
Yes, I know. However, IIRC they want three libraries to be updated to
the almost recent versions, and the risk to screw up the whole system
this way is too risky to us.
|
|
|
|
|