Recommend a Puppy variant

[jeffneedle]

Hi. I'm wondering if someone can recommend a Puppy variant that already has Wine installed. Sadly, probably my fault, nothing I do gets me to Wine running in Tahr64. Is there a Puppy variant with Wine already there? My machine is a 64-but box. Thanks.

[mikeslr]

Hi Jeff,

I can't recommend it. I recalled that there was a Puppy in which the Dev had included wine. http://wellminded.net63.net/ produced this link and ONLY THIS AS HAVING WINE ALREADY BUILTIN: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 751#868751. However, it's Dev, csipesz, cautions "Almost it's all right, but unfortunately, there is a strange li'l' mistake in him: the full installation wrong... - but there is a solution: go into the /initrd/pup_ro2 folder, and copy the full content into your aim partition.
After this, run the puppy universal installer on a usual manner, and elect in him the full install into your aim partition, and the refreshing! - if he is ready, may come the grub4dos and Hurray."

Later, csipesz, corrected the problem in May 2017. But the links to the corrected version no longer function. ally mirrored the original builds. You'll find them here: https://archive.org/details/Puppy_Linux ... ne_edition. But based on the dates of the builds in the archive, the corrected version isn't among them.

I think the problem csipesz mentioned only applies to a "Full Install" and won't arise if you do a "Frugal Install". Obviously, the DVD version at 2 Gb wasn't intended for a Frugal Install.

Beyond that, as a Slacko 5.6, that Puppy is only a 32-bit. Your post indicated you were having difficulty running wine under Tahrpup64. The problem you are having with wine most likely isn't with wine, itself, but that wine is a 32-bit application and to run it under a 64-bit Puppy you have to load and configure that Puppy's 32-bit-compatibility SFS. Getting that SFS properly configured is the most difficult part. If you were willing to use a 32-bit Puppy, almost any Puppy and any version of wine should pose no problem.

But I have to wonder what problem you are having. What did you do? What do you see?

Running Tahrpup64, have you followed the instructions here: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 806#973806? They were for Xenialpup64, but would be almost identical for Tahrpup64, except you would not need the pet I attached and would, to quote 666philb:

"a 32bit compatibilty.sfs is available which allows tahrpup64 to run skype, steam and various other 32bit packages. to install type sfsget into a terminal. once loaded type ldconfig into a terminal and you're set to go. (if you want to install proprietary graphic drivers please install the 32-compatibilty.sfs first)".

mikesLr

[slavvo67]

I have recently revisited Wine after initially having no use for it. I guess there are those rare occasions where someone would need a Windows program to run in Linux.

Anyway, I got it running in RU Xerus 64 and I can probably upload the package on Wed. or Thurs. (with combined dependencies).

I think it's wine64, meaning 64 bit version. Don't recall if I got the 32 bit version running, as well but I to have aspirations to do that, too.

Keep an eye on the RU Xerus 64 thread under Puppy Derivatives if you're interested.

Best,

Slavvo67

[jeffneedle]

Thanks to both of you. I'll look for the 64-bit install in a few days. Very exciting. The problems I'm having is that clicking on winecfg doesn't seem to be doing anything. I didn't try installing the 32-bit libraries. I'll wait for Thursday or Friday and look for the poster's contribution of the 64-bit version.

[bigpup]

There are 64bit versions of Wine here:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=88711

Example:
stable (64-bit):

2.0.3 |

development (64-bit):

2.14 | 2.18 | 2.19 |

wine64-2.0.3_v4.1.pet _________ tahrpup64 6.0.5 [stripped=true]
wine64_DEV-2.0.3.pet __________ tahrpup64 6.0.5
wine64_DOC-2.0.3.pet __________ tahrpup64 6.0.5

[Sailor Enceladus]

I remember never getting wine64 to work right, so I went back to tahr32, slacko32, unicorn32 OSes, etc. to use wine

When I tell this to people the answer is always the same: "But I want to use 64-bit". Frustrated that these people don't just use my simple solution and the problem would be over for them too, but oh well... good luck with wine64 I guess

[mikeslr]

Hi jeffneedle,

You wrote "The problems I'm having is that clicking on winecfg doesn't seem to be doing anything." On a 64-bit operating system, without having first loaded the 32-bit compatibility environment, it won't do anything. Wine, even the new "64-bit" versions available with Wine 2, are 32-bit applications. Wine 2 merely provides "support for 64-bit applications". Essentially, wine is a platform. What you've been doing is like building the second floor of a modular home, but not attaching it.

Even if you've loaded and configured the 32-bit compatibility SFS, clicking winecfg won't accomplish anything. Winecfg has to be run from a terminal to establish the wine environment. Code:

wine winecfg

or if using portable wine

wine.sh winecfg

Wine is attempting to keep up with developments in Windows. Although there were 64-bit versions of XP, very few 64-bit applications were developed for that platform. The structural limitations of XP did not keep pace with computer hardware innovations, which ultimately lead Microsoft to develop Windows 7 and above. While Microsoft sells (sold?) a cheap 32-bit Windows 7 OS, for all intents and purposes developers of applications for Windows now devote their attention to creating 64-bit applications.

The developers of Wine had to choose between finding something else to do or developing a platform which would be able to run (at least some of) the new applications being built for Windows 7 and above. They chose the latter, i.e 'support for 64-bit applications'.

Unless you have 64-bit applications, any previous iteration of wine would be as equally useful.

mikesLr

[jeffneedle]

Okay, installed 32-bit Puppy Tahr. A bit of a change. I had to find 32-bit equivalents to the apps I use. But everything is up and going. Haven't tested Wine yet. I'll report back.

[foxpup]

Once upon a time I had wine running on Tahr 6.0.5 32bit on a 64bit machine. Just used it for msWord (Office97 and FileFormatConverters.exe for .docx) and SmartRipper.
So, wine works on Tahr.

[Mike Walsh]

Once upon a time I had wine running on Tahr 6.0.5 32bit on a 64bit machine. Just used it for msWord (Office97 and FileFormatConverters.exe for .docx) and SmartRipper.
So, wine works on Tahr.

Agreed.

Tahr was the first-ever Pup I used full-time, after dumping Ubuntu back in late '14. After getting the browsers, email client and printer/scanner sorted out, WINE was the next thing on the agenda.Had it running on there for the last 3 years, as good as gold.

Don't forget, Jeff, you may need to experiment a wee bit with different versions of WINE to discover which runs the Windoze apps you want the best. WINE often suffers from regressions, as well as improvements; something which runs fine in one version may be 'broken' in the next. For this reason, it's usually better to employ the SFS packages rather than the .pets.....because they're far simpler to swap over.

And above all else, remember this; the newest version of WINE isn't always the best. The 2-series have been out for a while now.....and I believe they're already experimenting with betas of the 3-series. I use 1.7.51.....because for my use-case, it runs everything I want to use perfectly, with no hiccups.


Mike.

[mikeslr]

Hi Jeff,

About Wine versions, until the 2-Series, the devs of wine employed a naming technique to distinguish the 'stable' from the testing 'branch'. Look at the 2nd number of a build, i.e, 1.6 or 1.7. Even numbers represented those which ran without flaws, but might not run some applications which could run under the later 'odd' development. On the other hand, while the development branch might run some additional applications its effect on all applications which could be run on the 'stable' branch hadn't been extensively tested. The 3rd number of a build --i.e., 1.6.2-- were considered incremental changes which were believed to be improvements not effecting the success or failure of applications running under the version designated by the 2nd number.

One of the things an organization does to keep its members morale high is to keep it busy. In the Army, after 8-weeks of Basic Training, I was re-assigned to a different company and arrived simultaneously with about 200 others who were to receive the same Military occupational training at what was to be our quarters. The first thing our Top Sargent had us do is to remove the large white rocks forming a decorative border around the company parade ground and place them under the barracks. After completing that training and reassignment I had occasion to visit that company again. The new occupants were removing the rocks from under the barracks and placing them as a decorative border around the parade ground .

That said, by the time of the 1.4 build, and certainly the 1.6 build, almost anything which might be run under wine was being run under wine. I ran 1.6 for a couple of years and then 1.8 for a couple of years. At one point in time I had 32 Gb's of programs which could be installed and about another 10 Gb's of portables, all of which ran under either 1.6 or 1.8. And, none of the programs which failed under 1.6 ran under 1.8.

In short, the version of Wine you run probably won't make any difference. However, as Mike Walsh said, it may make a difference if you need to run a specific program without a mass following. In that case, it may pay to see if any Wine Testers reported their experiences using different wine versions. You can use the search box here: https://appdb.winehq.org/. As far as I know, there aren't any reports regarding portable-applications (those which do not write to Windows registry) and as a practical matter the success rate of portables is higher than 'installables'.

When trying a portable, you have to first create a folder outside the wine environment, then run setup and select that folder. The advantage is that as the portable does not write to wine's registry, if the program didn't work all you have to do is delete the folder.

mikesLr

[Mike Walsh]

Hallo again, Jeff (and Mike!)

You can take what Mike's said as pretty much gospel. I believe I'm right in saying that he and I have both used WINE extensively for a few years, and I have to agree with him.....portables do seem to enjoy a consistently higher success rate than standard, full 'installables'. I run at least a dozen of these, and from time to time try out new ones. 9 times out of 10 they fire up first time, with no major discernible problems.

I make up my own Menu-entry .pets for these, so I can install them quickly and easily in each Pup. If you'd like an example of these, either Mike or myself will be more than happy to supply them. Construction is pretty much the same for all of them; it's mostly the folder names and executables that need changing, then just checking to make certain you have 'paths' pointing to the right places. It's pretty straight-forward once you've done a few.

Finally, with 'portables', you don't 'install' them in the normal way.....as Mike will confirm. I simply put mine in a directory in /root I call 'PortableApps', and run the executables from there. They run quite happily like that. In fact, because I tend to run the same set of apps in every Pup, I keep the 'PortableApps' folder on a remote, 'data' partition, then sym-link the folder into each Pup's /root directory. It's a wee bit daft installing the same things 10 times (once for each Puppy in the 'kennels'!)

Any more questions, just ask. We'll do our best to help out, if at all possible.


Mike.

[foxpup]

Little correction to the above: it is Tahr 6.0.2, not 6.0.5, a little rebuild by me I am in it now.
I have wine_1.7.23.sfs loaded. I think I made it from a .pet, because I did not want it in my pupsave nor in puppy_tahr_6.0.2.sfs: I don't need it very often.
I have /root/.wine linked to /mnt/home/.wine to avoid my pupsave filling up.
I installed winbind, with deps libgettextpo0 and libmpg123, and cabextract from debian Jessie.

It is Office2000, not Office97, I installed with wine. It is not totally straightforward, so I elaborate a little on it.
It needs winetrick mfc42.
I have an .iso of Office2000. I had to extract it on my HDD to install, otherwise there are problems. There are still a lot of messages during installation. I inspected these and I tried to fix the errors by placing missing or not registered files (.ttf, .dll) by hand. They are in /system/ in the extracted .iso and they have to placed in mnt/home/.wine/drive_c/windows/system32/
I added a little script in /root/my-applications/bin/ for msword and a nice .desktop in /usr/share/applications/. Ms Word runs nicely on my Puppy.

I hope this helps.
Not everything works in wine, you better check first in the AppDB from WineHQ or elsewhere. It takes some time to figure it all out, so be sure you really need/want it before yo start playing unless you do it just for the fun of it.

[Mike Walsh]

Hi, foxpup.

Little correction to the above: it is Tahr 6.0.2, not 6.0.5, a little rebuild by me I am in it now.
I have wine_1.7.23.sfs loaded. I think I made it from a .pet, because I did not want it in my pupsave nor in puppy_tahr_6.0.2.sfs: I don't need it very often.
I have /root/.wine linked to /mnt/home/.wine to avoid my pupsave filling up.
I installed winbind, with deps libgettextpo0 and libmpg123, and cabextract from debian Jessie.

It is Office2000, not Office97, I installed with wine. It is not totally straightforward, so I elaborate a little on it.
It needs winetrick mfc42.
I have an .iso of Office2000. I had to extract it on my HDD to install, otherwise there are problems. There are still a lot of messages during installation. I inspected these and I tried to fix the errors by placing missing or not registered files (.ttf, .dll) by hand. They are in /system/ in the extracted .iso and they have to placed in mnt/home/.wine/drive_c/windows/system32/
I added a little script in /root/my-applications/bin/ for msword and a nice .desktop in /usr/share/applications/. Ms Word runs nicely on my Puppy.

I hope this helps.
Not everything works in wine, you better check first in the AppDB from WineHQ or elsewhere. It takes some time to figure it all out, so be sure you really need/want it before yo start playing unless you do it just for the fun of it.

Snap.

I, too, have an ISO of Office 2000. A mate gave me a copy of his, years ago. The only component I actually use is WORD, so I use the custom install to choose which bits I want. Excel I don't want, and Outlook actually buggers the system up if you try to install it. And as for all that 'Small Business' guff.....augghhh! Nope; I don't think so, thanks all the same.

1.7.51 only wants cabextract; I seem to recall I also had to employ a few more steps back when I used 1.7.23. Like you, I've made up a MenuEntry .pet for this, as well as every other Windoze app I run. 'Tis a wee bit tidier than icons all over the desktop..!


Mike.

[foxpup]

Like you, I've made up a MenuEntry .pet for this, as well as every other Windoze app I run. 'Tis a wee bit tidier than icons all over the desktop..!

Hi Mike
I like a clean desktop too. In fact, I make a .desktop, but I rarely use that on the desktop, it is just for the menu. I use the possibility in ROX/JWM to assign a default action to filetype.

[foxpup]

I just rediscovered xslacko-slim. It is "wine ready"! Santé!
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=107313
It's a nice, well maintained build from mistfire.