Linux Dedicated Server From Windows Build

#1 As far as I know of you have to compile Torque on Linux in order to get a Linux executable. Now on Linux you can use gcc's cross compile feature to compile a Windows executable, but I don't think the Windows port of gcc supports such a feature and I know for a fact Microsoft's compilers only compile for Windows operating systems.

If you want to try compiling on Linux without having to do a dual-boot installation get a copy of VMware Server and install it and then create a Linux guest and then boot Linux via VMware Server. You will need to download an ISO image of a Linux distribution in order to install Linux on the VMware Server guest. I suggest to get Ubuntu desktop.

Links:
VMware Server
Ubuntu Linux (suggest 8.10 version)

I should write a tutorial on how to do a Linux build of a dedicated server of Torque using VMware Server. I'll work on it sometime this next upcoming weekend or something. :)

Update:

Instead of using VMware Server I suggest trying VirtualBox, thanks to bank for bringing it to my attention and see my comment below for reasons to or not to use VMware Server. This is just a note for those who later on search on the forums and land on this particular forum thread.

#2 Crud, i was afraid of that. Thank you

#3 I've found that using Sun's xVM VirtualBox is much more easier to run Linux "in a box" (comparing to VMware).
I was able to run "at the same time" four different distributions of linux and all of them has running by one dedicated torque (build on the same box).

Well, for building dedicated server for linux - yes, its better to make it on linux (as Nathan suggested).
Ubuntu - the way to go with! Easy and very stable.
But my personal fav: openSUSE
11.1 not tested yet
11.0 have some issues compiling but running smooth
10.x are perfect: AfterWorld servers running on 10.2 (though 10.2 is not anymore supported), 10.3 (recommended, really good and stable build, have it on my test machine)

#4 I'm with Bank there I find VirtualBox easier to work with, I'm an ubuntu man myself and you really shouldn't have any hassles getting it up and running.

#5 Thanks for pointing out VirtualBox and I agree, it is far better than using VMware Server for this purpose. Matter of fact I'm going to use VirtualBox for now on for all my development testing except in cases where I'll need a virtual machine running 24/7 I'll use the VMware Server.

Also I have noticed that VMware Server has gotten a lot more bloated and a lot more difficult to manage with the version 2.0 they came out with as 1.0 basically worked exactly like VMware Workstation except it can be managed remotely or locally instead of fixed at local only. So yeah anyway, I'm glad you mentioned VirtualBox and I tried it out over the weekend and I do enjoy using it. Very small and light weight (only 33MByte) compared to VMware Server of which has grown from ~200MByte to now 580Mbyte. It just keeps getting more bloated by the release.

#6 From what I understand VMWare server is being supplanted by VMWare Infrastructure, hence the bloat and inattention lately.

Infrastructure is nice but I haven't used VirtualBox, so I can't offer a comparison.

#7 VirtualBox + Ubuntu JeOS = Good Times