AnyDesk 'portable' packages - 32- or 64-bit....

[Mike Walsh]

Afternoon, all.

With AnyDesk now looking to be the favoured TeamViewer replacement for Puppy - due to the latter's insistence on Qt5, and all the older packages having been disabled by TeamViewer themselves - here are some 'portable', run-anywhere Puppy packages for the current release, v5.5.4.

I've packed these as either AppImages, or a self-extracting script, thanks to Fred's extremely useful portable-packaging scripts. In both cases, you just click on them, and they run.

64-bitzers have been tested in Phil B's Bionicpup64 8.0, Xenialpup64 7.5 & Tahrpup64 6.0.5/6. The 32-bitzers have only been tested in radky's sublime DPup 'Stretch', this being the sole 32-bit Puppy I use nowadays.

Downloads here:-

32-bit:-

AppImage

Self-extracting script

64-bit:-

AppImage

Self-extracting script

I will endeavour to keep these up-to-date for y'all. Help yourselves to the one you want. Enjoy.


Mike.

[fjd]

Mike,
I downloaded 32-bit to try. I'm uncomfortable with keeping Anydesk off the computer to lose, misplace, etc. Can it be installed?

[mikeslr]

Mike,
I downloaded 32-bit to try. I'm uncomfortable with keeping Anydesk off the computer to lose, misplace, etc. Can it be installed?

Not sure what you mean. Accidentally delete from /mnt/home?

I didn't try Mike's self-extracting script. But AppImages can be located anyplace including /opt and, hence, withing a SaveFile/Folder.

[Mike Walsh]

@ fjd:-

I would think the easiest way to do this would be to stick the AppImage in /opt, as t'other Mike says. Or, if you like, you could do what I've done.

In /root, I've created a 'hidden' directory - ~/.AnyDesk. (Note the use of the dot (.); this denotes a hidden directory.

Inside that 'hidden' directory, I've placed the 'AnyDesk' portable. Use the 'eye' icon in ROX's 'menu-bar' to show hidden directories/files; makes working with them easier. From there, I've simply dragged it to the desktop (ROX's 'pinboard').

This way, it's on the desktop to use, yet the real 'portable' is hidden away out of sight in /root. Doesn't hurt, cos the whole thing is tiny, really.

Up to you where you put it, TBH. You could leave it out of sight, and build a MenuEntry to start it from Menu->Network....and that's quite easy to do as well.


Mike.

[davids45]

G'day Mike,

No longer being a worker with a desk (or 'team'), I was curious to know what all the fuss about 'Teamviewer' (and so 'AnyDesk') is.

Starting today in an SCPup32, I downloaded your two 32-bit files. When I found which one looked like it could run, I copied it to my data partition's 32bit-Portables directory and after making the file executable, ran it in a terminal to see why it was not running.
The usual issue between Slackware and Ubuntu Pups was confirmed with some missing libs in this ScPup (version 20.01, k-4.14.160-lxpup-32-pae).

I added the libs indicated in the terminal messages from my LibraryFiles archive or by temporarily mounting a bionicpup sfs and copying the needed lib file from bionic to SCPup's /usr/lib/.

Here's the terminal output for this:

# cd /mnt/sda5/Puppy_Archive/32Portables/AnyDesk554-Portable/
# ls
AnyDesk-554-portable32
# ./AnyDesk-554-portable32
Verifying archive integrity... All good.
Uncompressing AnyDesk-554-portable32 100%
anydesk: error while loading shared libraries: libpangox-1.0.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Checking anydesk for missing libraries...
libpangox-1.0.so.0 => not found
libsystemd.so.0 => not found
libpangox-1.0.so.0 => not found
Adding these depencencies will probably fix if the program doesn't run.
# ./AnyDesk-554-portable32
Verifying archive integrity... All good.
Uncompressing AnyDesk-554-portable32 100%
anydesk: error while loading shared libraries: libsystemd.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Checking anydesk for missing libraries...
libsystemd.so.0 => not found
Adding these depencencies will probably fix if the program doesn't run.
# ./AnyDesk-554-portable32
Verifying archive integrity... All good.
Uncompressing AnyDesk-554-portable32 100%
anydesk: error while loading shared libraries: liblz4.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Checking anydesk for missing libraries...
liblz4.so.1 => not found
Adding these depencencies will probably fix if the program doesn't run.
# ./AnyDesk-554-portable32
Verifying archive integrity... All good.
Uncompressing AnyDesk-554-portable32 100%

(program now runs!!!)

So ScPup users could need:

libpangox-1.0.so.0
libsystemd.so.0
liblz4.so.1

to run the AnyDesk Portable.

Looks basically like a file-transfer application so not much use to an isolating (self or otherwise) user?

Eye-candy mode:
Is there an included 'AnyDesk' icon to set for the 'AnyDesk' script on the pinboard?

Thanks again for your Portables - Audacity is very nice.

David S.

[Mike Walsh]

@ David:-

There's a lot more to AnyDesk than meets the eye. Like TeamViewer, the initial interface gives absolutely no hint of what the app offers, because many windows don't appear until you actually start using it.....

But, er, nice one for being persistent with the 'lib-chase'; it's always the case with Slackware-based Pups, 'cos Slackware are so conservative with what they supply by default.

From what I can glean, you can connect to multiple other machines/desktops with AnyDesk; TeamViewer is usually one at a time, unless and until you start paying for the 'Enterprise' a/c.....which then 'unlocks' more features. However many desktops you're connected to, you get a row of 'thumbnails' along the bottom in that grey band, showing those desktops.

Icon attached.


Mike.

[ozsouth]

Have just started using this - much better than vnc. Using the free download .deb from here: https://anydesk.com/ ,
ScPup64 & LxPupSc64 missing 3 libs, which I've packaged in attached .pet

[backi]

Wow ......cool .....
Thanks a lot Mike !

[Max Headroom]

I Will Try it, the Reason I was asking about VNC was because I Wtd a X Platform Solution ie. Linux, MacOS & M$ Virus Bait Windows.

According 2 sum sauces MacOS & AnyDesk aRen't compatible, Others say OK, I'm Confused!

Thanx 4 Appimages!...

;-)K

[Mike Walsh]

I Will Try it, the Reason I was asking about VNC was because I Wtd a X Platform Solution ie. Linux, MacOS & M$ Virus Bait Windows.

According 2 sum sauces MacOS & AnyDesk aRen't compatible, Others say OK, I'm Confused!

Thanx 4 Appimages!...

;-)K

Ermm....Windoze, MacOs, Android, iOS, Linux, FreeBSD, Raspberry Pi, ChromeOS......is that enough cross-compatibility for you?

From the 'horse's mouth'...


Mike.

[soniabu]

Mike, I downloaded in my Bionicpup64 Anydesk Appimage
(the .deb file from the official website is installed without error but does not start)
and I can start, but I have difficulty in reading, for example, the description of the components in the setting; that is, on a white background the letters are a gray color, soft and smooth.

Any suggestions?

[tallboy]

Hi Mike. I cannot make either version work in my tahr64_6.0.6. I placed the portable in /opt, set the permissions to exec, restarted X, and clicked the app. Nothing happens! Do you have a md5sum for both 64-bit versions?

Oh, a thought came from the other brain cell: Is my VPN preventing things from happening? Will play some more...
Edit: Nope
Edit once more: Moved the potable app to /root/my-applications/bin, and tried to run it from a terminal window.

Code: Select all

root# AnyDesk-5.5.4-portable64 
anydesk: error while loading shared libraries: libsystemd.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Checking anydesk for missing libraries... 
	libsystemd.so.0 => not found
Adding these depencencies will probably fix if the program doesn't run.

I have no frigging systemd!

[Mike Walsh]

@ Olaf:-

Now then; here's a .pet package just for you.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gphN9K ... sp=sharing

This fires up, OOTB, in a pristine install of Tahrpu64 6.0.6. Just d/l, install, then Menu->Network->Anydesk. Bob's yr mother's brother, it runs straight away.

It does have a few systemd-related deps, I'll grant you that; I guess that's a function of whatever distro this was compiled in. If it was mainstream, and fairly new, it'll have systemd. They all do now. But it's possible to have systemd-related items on the system without having the monstrosity itself.

(They're only there so that Anydesk catches sight of them, says "Yep; I can see you...!", and then it'll do its thing....)

It's entirely up to you. Your choice.


Mike.

[tallboy]

Thanks, mate. Sent you a pm.

[wiak]

But it's possible to have systemd-related items on the system without having the monstrosity itself.

Mike, you are misinformed. This forum is full of such misinformation, which is a tragic falsehood. Your comment was out-of-topic, hence so is my reply to it, apologies. However, these nonsense claims against systemd are technically misleading less-informed forum members so I can't let that comment pass silently, though of course you are welcome to have your own negative feelings, however misinformed they may be in this case...

https://opensource.com/article/20/4/systemd

Final thoughts
Even before getting very deep into systemd, it's obvious that it is both powerful and complex. It is also apparent that systemd is not a single, huge, monolithic, and unknowable binary file. Rather, it is composed of a number of smaller components and subcommands that are designed to perform specific tasks.

Arch Linux is an example of a very flexible OS for users that uses systemd, and one that I am becoming familiar with because I use upstream Arch system as the basis for one of my WeeDogLinux build script creations.

Arch used to use SysVinit. Here is what an ex primary maintainer of the init systems for Arch Linux had to say about adopting systemd in preference to the mess that was SysVinit (and I have personally worked with SysVinit since the early 1990's, but have to say that now that I've finally learned a bit of how to use systemd, it is much easier to use from a sysadmin point of view, and like a breath of fresh air. Runit, as used in Void Linux is nice too as it happens, but certainly not that SysVinit Puppy hangs on to!):

https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comm ... e_systemd/

I was the primary maintainer for Arch's init scripts for a while and I can share a couple of thoughts.

Arch's initscripts were incredibly stupid. In their first phase, there was a static set of steps that would be performed on every boot. There was almost no way to adjust the behaviour here. In their second phase, the configured daemons were started in order, which only meant that a init scripts were called one after another.

In the early 2000s, that seemed like a good idea and has worked for a while. But with more complex setups, the shortcomings of that system become apparent.

With hardware becoming more dynamic and asynchronous initialization of drivers in the kernel, it was impossible to say when a certain piece of hardware would be available. For a long time, this was solved by first triggering uevents, then waiting for udev to "settle". This often took a very long time and still gave no guarantee that all required hardware was available. Working around this in shell code would be very complex, slow and error-prone: You'd have to retry all kinds of operations in a loop until they succeed. Solution: An system that can perform actions based on events - this is one of the major features of systemd.

Initscripts had no dependency handling for daemons. In times where only a few services depended on dbus and nothing else, that was easy to handle. Nowadays, we have daemons with far more complex dependencies, which would make configuration in the old initscripts-style way hard for every user. Handling dependencies is a complex topic and you don't want to deal with it in shell code. Systemd has it built-in (and with socket-activation, a much better mechanism to deal with dependencies).

Complex tasks in shell scripts require launching external helper program A LOT. This makes things very slow. Systemd handles most of those tasks with builtin fast C code, or via the right libraries. It won't call many external programs to perform its tasks.

The whole startup process was serialized. Also very slow. Systemd can parallelize it and does so quite well.

No indication of whether a certain daemon was already started. Each init script had to implement some sort of PID file handling or similar. Most init scripts didn't. Systemd has a 100% reliable solution for this based on Linux cgroups.

Race conditions between daemons started via udev rules, dbus activation and manual configuration. It could happen that a daemon was started multiple times (maybe even simultaneously), which lead to unexpected results (this was a real problem with bluez). Systemd provides a single instance where all daemons are handled. Udev or dbus don't start daemons anymore, they tell systemd that they need a specific daemon and systemd takes care of it.

Lack of configurability. It was impossible to change the behaviour of initscripts in a way that would survive system updates. Systemd provides good mechanisms with machine-specific overrides, drop-ins and unit masking.

Burden of maintenance: In addition to the aforementioned design problems, initscripts also had a large number of bugs. Fixing those bugs was always complicated and took time, which we often did not have. Delegating this task to a larger community (in this case, the systemd community) made things much easier for us.

I realize that many of these problems could be solved with some work, and some were already solved by other SysV-based init systems. There was no system that solved all of these problems and did so in a realiable manner, as systemd does.

So, for me personally, when systemd came along, it solved all the problems I ever had with system initialization. What most systemd critics consider "bloat", I consider necessary complexity to solve a complex problem generically. You can say what you want about Poettering, but he actually realized what the problems with system initialization were and provided a working solution.

I could go on for hours, but this should be a good summary.

Whether you believe it or not, most of the above init-related comments also apply to Puppy Linux since it uses SysVinit (though in very simplified form since it isn't a true multi-user system, which is fine for its focus and purpose). No wish to use systemd - fine... but let us hope that those who call themselves the Puppy stewards one day modernise Puppy, somewhat, by throwing out SysVinit and at least replace it with something like runit as a considerably better alternative.

Sorry for the thread interruption - but like I say, it wasn't me who out-of-topic chose to spread false news about systemd. The problem with such bold nonsense inaccurate or wholly untrue statements about something like systemd is that it keeps people ignorant, who themselves, go on to spread that same false information they have trusted as part of their learning more about Linux via forum mentoring help.

Yes, there are some experienced Linux users/developers and so on here who hate systemd, but frankly I cannot understand where half of their prejudice comes from - most of the anti-systemd 'monstrosity, and so on' claims certainly do not at all match my own practical experience of using/configuring these various init systems on a daily basis over many decades.

wiak

[Mike Walsh]

@ wiak:-

Mm. O-kay. Fair comment!

I stand corrected....

No; I accept that Lennart Poettering is a very clever guy, and also that he, unlike many others in the community, is taking "the long view".....looking much further ahead than most. I also suspect that my views on systemd are coloured by my own often disastrous encounters with Pulseaudio (no two ways about it, the thing IS overly-complex; even the mainstream distros, whose infrastructure is rather better organised than ours, don't always seem to get it right.)

But your statement, which I'll quote:-

...<snip>I have personally worked with SysVinit since the early 1990's, but have to say that now that I've finally learned a bit of how to use systemd, it is much easier to use from a sysadmin point of view, and like a breath of fresh air</snip>...

.....confirms what I've gleaned from multiple sources over the last couple of years; that the thing is primarily geared towards making the lives of sysadmins as easy as possible. This, by its very nature, pre-supposes a high degree of prior, existing knowledge; certainly not in keeping with Puppy's ethos, which is very much that of a single-user, hobbyist system, often adopted by those merely looking to buck the status quo, and not necessarily that knowledgeable where the nuts'n'bolts are concerned..!

I accept the statements about hardware complexity having vastly increased, and therefore requiring more complex methods of controlling, configuring & administering; this new HP tower of mine makes ye anciente Dell lappie - nearly 18 years old now, and still going strong! - look distinctly pedestrian & "agricultural", to put it kindly.

I can't help feeling that the user is being somewhat "backgrounded" by all this, and that the general attitude is slowly reverting toward an earlier era, where high technical knowledge was taken as a "given" if you wanted to run Linux successfully. But that's just me.

(You're probably right about Puppy benefiting from a revised, simplified init system. I won't argue with you on that score, since I have only the most tenuous understanding of what really goes on at that stage of the game. I'm not an "expert" where the basic code that makes everything function is concerned.....and even at the 'user' level, where my own contributions are targeted, I'm a very long way from being an "expert" of any stripe. I'll be the first to admit that.)

I shall endeavour to refrain from making further 'pronouncements'..!


Mike.

[wiak]

.....confirms what I've gleaned from multiple sources over the last couple of years; that the thing is primarily geared towards making the lives of sysadmins as easy as possible. This, by its very nature, pre-supposes a high degree of prior, existing knowledge; certainly not in keeping with Puppy's ethos, which is very much that of a single-user, hobbyist system, often adopted by those merely looking to buck the status quo, and not necessarily that knowledgeable where the nuts'n'bolts are concerned..!
...
I shall endeavour to refrain from making further 'pronouncements'..!

Mike.

But that last comment of yours about further pronouncements is unfair Mike because it tends to make me look like the out-of-topic bad guy!

However, I have to dispute further, because the fact of the matter is that systemd configuration is far simpler generally than SysVinit! The mechanism, the things you need to do to control everything are much simpler, and the method is consistent so once you get the hang of it, the same simple configs apply to every system service you are trying to control. Dear old SysVinit as used by Puppy, on the other hand, requires very good knowledge of both the complex init scripting system (which is utterly implementation dependent and at the whim of the installer/scripts-implementer to a large extent) and also of shell scripting itself - no such requirement for systemd. People who have no programming skills at all can learn the simple basics of systemd and control all the services on their system as and how they want to. No way can most people manage that with SysVinit, which requires a complex study of the init scripts on the system and how they are set up and what is in them!

So why do most people consider systemd use a 'black complex art' when it isn't? Simple - they haven't actually used it (in the sense of configuring with it) and believe all the mis-information about its complexity. And frankly most users probably have no interest in setting up their system to run the way they want it (not at the services level - yes, many like setting up their desktop configuration, but truth is, that is easier under systemd as well...).

Is there a bad side to systemd. Well, nothing is perfect - there are always drawbacks, but the biggest worry, I suppose if you think of it that way is that systemd is good enough that it may indeed eventually utterly take over... When something better in design comes along it is a reality that it becomes more and more difficult to maintain backwards compatibity and most app developers simply don't have enough time to try. As more and more system components get drawn in to becoming systemd compatible, so thus does Linux generally. Without stating my opinion of pulseaudio here, the case is similar for that compared to direct use of alsa, which is problematic because alsa operation is quite low level in terms of control structures and too much hardware dependent - pulseaudio provides a higher control layer that sorts out the underlying stuff for you (if configured correctly, which tends, nowadays, to be the case out-of-the box in major distros).

wiak

[step]

Is there a bad side to systemd. Well, nothing is perfect - there are always drawbacks

I'm truly interested in knowing that you think are the technical and usage drawbacks of systemd, if any. Thank you.

[wiak]

Is there a bad side to systemd. Well, nothing is perfect - there are always drawbacks

I'm truly interested in knowing that you think are the technical and usage drawbacks of systemd, if any. Thank you.

Well... I'll in any case resist commenting off-topic. I suppose opinions on systemd more generally have a thread somewhere - though the title slants the discussion with negative ideas about it via its title as far as I recall.

wiak

[step]

Well... I'll in any case resist commenting off-topic.

OK, fair enough.