Does anyone know if WINE and Puppy Linux are compatible, and if so, which binaries i should use?

Wine is compatible with all linux's, if you compile it yourself.

If it doesn't list binaries SPECIFICALLY for your distro, then i recommend you go with the compile approach. Note: this means you need make and gcc/g++ installed (along with whatever dependancies WINE has, check the documentation for wine), your distro should have details concerning those, as they are very common, and a-near required for linux.

This is why you should have gone with Debian (for binaries), or Gentoo (for compiling), as you could just have the OS auto-install it for you

Do note, however, that while WINE is very good, it is FAR from perfect. Many apps will either run amazingly SLOW, or not at all. Alot require specific DLL's to be manually downloaded/placed in the right folder. Be prepared to do alot of work to get a windows app working

I've had nothing but trouble with Puppy linux, I couldn't get it to install on any of my Hds (I was doing everything right, it just wouldn't work). Also, it is about as old as win95.

@Kllrnohj: Yeah, but I'm fairly sure they said it has full dos and win 3.1 support. When I get Ubuntu Linux I'm going to get WINE so I can play my old games and maybe a few of my newer ones.

If you get this working, Alex, let us know, I have a spare USB drive this would fit well on.

so far i havent had any issues, aside from the lack of appropriate soundcard drivers... though i should be able to rectify said problem today...


and the reason i didnt get Debian is that i still want to be able to run windows if necessary, and dont wanna mess with it on accident... puppy just creates a file on your partition...

You can install linux on the same partition as your windows installation...not a good idea but possible Still though, you should make a seperate partition for your linux install

As for WINE, use cedega instead (download it via cvs).

Eh, WINE runs some prog's, Cedega others, i use em both

Oh, and its impossible to install linux and windows on the same partition if its in NTFS (well, highly experimental anyway)

As for Ubuntu, i used it, and i HIGHLY recommend debian over Ubuntu/Kubuntu/and debian based OS. Just get debian. The reason is that you could actually break your install if you use the debian apt-get repository (which i believe has more programs) Unless, of course, you need the CD's mailed to you, cause ubuntu does that for free (ubuntu's also not quite as stable for me as debian/gentoo)



ew..umm...can you say slow? yeah... SLOW....but whatever, i guess its a good way to jump in and get your feet wet, per se (i just partitioned my main drive, win on one, linux on the other, with a swap partition, and a FAT32 partition to transfer files between win and linux - used Partitoin Magic to resize without destroying)

I strongly, STRONGLY recommend you get a distro with a HUGE user base, Fedora, Debian, Gentoo, something with plenty of ppl to help you out if you get in trouble (in the gentoo forums, you'll usually get a response the same day, and they have a GREAT wiki available)

Is it slow? That's something to keep in mind...

slow? lemme compare it to the winXP on my machine:

Media files: takes <1 second to open on puppy, but >5 on XP... puppy wins
Internet connectivity: no luck yet on puppy... no wireless card drivers...
File browsing: no comparison... puppy owns XP so bad... XP freezes and dies whenever i try to view my temp internet files... (cuz thats how i jack media files)

[QUOTE]ew..umm...can you say slow? yeah... SLOW....but whatever, i guess its a good way to jump in and get your feet wet, per se (i just partitioned my main drive, win on one, linux on the other, with a swap partition, and a FAT32 partition to transfer files between win and linux - used Partitoin Magic to resize without destroying) /QUOTE]



I think he's comparing your way to how other linux setups would run on dedicated partitions.

Correct. Even the slowest linux is still light-years ahead of Windoze

@alex:
Your 'mini-benchmarks' merely reveal that most windows programs suck. You can actually read a 5mb file in a fraction of a second, but DOING something with that data is different. This is where you were noticing differences in speed.

The speed difference i am refering to is ONLY harddrive access. (Things like boot - which will still be faster than windows) This could also be a problem if you have low memory, and you have to read/write to the swap. That will be very slow too

true... but just the same, it shows how shitty windows really is... with puppy i dont have to worry about BSODs every time i wanna listen to Apocalyptica...

Then why do you still have windows...?

probably for compatitbilty. There are things Windows supports that Linux doesn't

Very true. But unfortunate.

its slowly changing tho! linux support is becomming more and more common, YES!

yeah, and so is the fad of FireFox. The security flaws of FireFox are now coming out, due to the number of users. The main reason FireFox was said to be safer in the beginning is that due to the small hold on the market, it wasn't worth targeting. Now, it has a lager hold, and is starting to get targeted. I think Linux may become the same way. I hope someone creates Antivirus and similar for Linux (I haven't seen any).

Really? I haven't had ANY problems so far. And it's not just the fact that so few people use it, it's also that it's open source so bugs and security gpas get fixed much, much more quickly.

@rivereye - there are anti-virus programs for Linux... it just so happens that they're all freeware

@Kerm - yeah, firefox does have vulnerabilities... it will be targeted soon...

Gar, didn't know that