Ok, I will explain why it is that way.

On Linux (and other Unix* like systems like OS X), there is special path (saved in variable $PATH) from where you can start programs only by typing its name. This is for "standard" system-wide program (like vim, ls...). This path is usually /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, but you can change your own $PATH to reflect your needs.

On the other hand, if you want to start program from directory you are actually in, you have to type "./program". Because "./" stands for "actual directory", so, you are actually saying "start 'program' from actual directory".

If you would like to start squeak only by typing "squeak.sh" and from anywhere, you could (but you shouldn't) copy it to /usr/bin, but better way is to change $PATH like:

export $PATH=$PATH:/path/to/one-click/squeak.sh

(this would be temporary. add this to file ~/.bashrc to make it permanent).

But I recommend to you not to use windows*like "starting programs, downloaded from Internet, from my home directory", but to use Ubuntu Software Center/apt-get/aptitude/whatever you like and download all programs from repositories.

Happy hacking, Jan

Garret Raziel pisze:

Ok, I will explain why it is that way.

On Linux (and other Unix* like systems like OS X), there is special path (saved in variable $PATH) from where you can start programs only by typing its name. This is for "standard" system-wide program (like vim, ls...). This path is usually /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, but you can change your own $PATH to reflect your needs.

On the other hand, if you want to start program from directory you are actually in, you have to type "./program". Because "./" stands for "actual directory", so, you are actually saying "start 'program' from actual directory".

Let me explain the reason for that. Imagine you CAN run programs by just writing their names, when you are in the directory they are in. No imagine you have a directory /some/path/to/a/directory/writable/for/another/user Suppose, you do:

cd /some/path/to/a/directory/writable/for/another/user ls

KABOOM, you removed all your files! How could it happen? An evil user created a file named "ls" in /some/path/to/a/directory/writable/for/another/user and put the following code there:

#!/bin/sh rm -Rf /

Now you should be able to understand the reason behind that. That's why you SHOULDN'T put . into your $PATH

Herbert

I assume you started Squeak in headless mode. May I ask you to post how you your command looked like?

Thank you --Hannes

On 9/13/12, Herbert König herbertkoenig@gmx.net wrote:

Hi,

thanks to all who replied! Now i managed to SFTP my Squeak to an Ubuntu server, start it via SSH, control it via RFB.

Cheers,

Herbert

Am 13.09.2012 22:34, schrieb Mateusz Grotek:

...

#!/bin/sh rm -Rf / Now you should be able to understand the reason behind that. That's why you SHOULDN'T put . into your $PATH _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

---

Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

On 12-09-13 7:59 AM, Herbert König wrote:

Hi Chris,

Am 13.09.2012 13:44, schrieb Chris Cunnington:

...

It is possible for a 32-bit/64-bit mismatch. I'd look to that first, as I had this problem, but otherwise I find ./squeak.sh to be pretty reliable for starting.

no, Jan was right, it was just me being newbie-ish. I hope I can hire a 32 bit server but it seems I should try to set up a 64 bit Ubuntu server VM to learn what's necessary to run Squeak 32 bit on a 64 bit server.

Cheers

Herbert _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

Super. Glad you got it working.

Chris