64bit ubuntu working with wine and newsbin

[newsraider]

i am thinking about installing the 64bit version of ubuntu and was wanted to know if would work with wine and newsbin?

[DThor]

AFAIK it's meaningless to run wine in anything other than 32 bit(although I keep seeing users desperately trying to compile it as a 64 bit app), so essentially you need to run it in a "chroot" environment, described here. If you can get that running, then newsbin shouldn't have any different issues than it does on a regular 32 bit system.

You're describing, btw, one of about 20 issues I came across trying to implement Ubuntu in a production environment, and why I threw the install disk across the room after 10 days of cussing and spitting. You want to know what I have to do in order to run wine/any other 32 bit app in a SUSE x64 distro? I install "32 bit compatibility libraries"...one step...and I run the app. Done.

It *completely* escapes me why Ubuntu is being toted as "easy for the end user". It's easy for people that don't ask much of their OS, no question.

DT

P.S. be sure to poke around and see if there's any easier way to do this. All I could find for feisty was stuff like this, but maybe I missed something.

[newsraider]

i did just come across this link to wine
http://www.winehq.org/site/download-deb

suppose to work with feisty 64.

so as long as i get wine to work i should be good getting newsbin to run, cool.

i don't have 64 loaded yet its something i want to give a shot though. i heard linux is doing a little better then windows in the 64 bit world.

do you have a 64 bit install? does it make a difference? i figure i have a 64 cpu so might as well get a os to match it.

i am a total linux newbie. i played around with mandrake and red hat back in early 2000, but only did i make the complete jump to linux this year. in my experience it has been very easy too use. i guess it depends on what you are doing, but from installing programs to getting video drivers to run it's been smooth. my only complaint is i feel ubuntu is kinda slow, so i am going to try xubuntu with the xfce gui.

i was going to try suse, but i heard they are making some deals with microsoft. so i didn't want any part of it. microsoft is the whole reason i even tried linux in the 1st place.

[DThor]

I'm not really clear what that wine packaging is. I suspect it's wrapped it in a chroot, since I think wine in actual 64 bit is meaningless, isn't it? I mean, you can't run XP or win2000 in 64 bit. I'm not sure, though.

I'm working in a production environment which requires flawless and invisible networking between workstations(we use the "invisible" NFS for day to day work), highspeed and unfussy disk access(i.e. no defragging), a flexible grid-based farm, and fast response on the desktop. We tend to get fairly highend workstations so the latter isn't really noticable one way or the other. All new nodes that come online are 64 bit now, so we'll be mixing the two until all the 32 bit systems die, which unfortunately will be a long time(since there's hassles you need to deal with mixed grids).

As far as whether Linux x64 is better than Windows 64(and I assume you mean less hassle with buggy drivers), then I'd probably have to say yes, as a rule. You need to temper that with the reality that most hardware is designed to work with Windows, so there's obviously more hardware that's MS supported than Linux, but those that are linux-friendly(and there's a lot) have had the 64 bit drivers around a bit longer. Win64 is relatively new, Linux has been doing it for quite some time.

Will you notice a better system, somehow, by installing 64 bit? Almost certainly not. Essentially it tends to give you very slightly less memory to use, you might get *ever* so slightly faster response on the desktop, and you'll be able to install huge amounts of memory, should you need that sort of thing usable by a single process. Otherwise, you'll not really notice it, and frankly there's lots of hassles with things like browser plugins and java. You will have a lot less headaches running 32 bit. You will notice a far more intense speed increase running multiple core systems over going 32->64. Of course, the latest workstations we're getting are both, which is sweet for us. I just started using a dual cpu/quad core system and it's rather mind-boggling, watching those 8 64-bit cores rip away at things. My only regret(and learned lesson) is to get more memory.

It's changing every month - eventually standard releases will be x64, 32 will be the exception and typical compilations will match that so there won't be the problems of "why can't I watch movies in my 64 bit browser with my 32 bit movie player?". I can hardly wait.

The SUSE/MS conspiracy? I guess I've got too much work to do to give a shit. MS isn't the dragon and Linux isn't St. George. No-one's going to slay MS. You need to co-exist. That's not saying they'll not do things down the road that won't piss me off, but right now the biggest pain in the arse I get in dealing with Linux are the holier-than-thou Stallman/BSD religious fanatics that are driving Linux into the ground. For example - Mozilla decided to copyright the "Firefox" name. Those bastards! So what does BSD do? They'll offer Firefox...sort of. But they rename it to "IceWeasel".

It's like a bunch of 10 year old boys. Linus has it right - make Linux better, more stable, and more usable. Don't cripple things with politics. Don't obsess with MS as the "enemy". Offer an alternative. Work your ass off to make it attractive. Don't be a fanboy.

Not everyone needs to do the sort of stuff we do, so they'll probably find it easier to run Windows. It can be a blast, though, to play around with Linux. SUSE just tends "to work", as a rule.

DT

[newsraider]

i believe there is a 64bit version of xp. not sure if there still selling them anymore?

yes the more reading i do the more it doesn't sound that great to go 64 right now.
i don't mind tweaking some stuff to make it work, but at some point i just want to be able to do some work on it.

the suse/windows issue i don't know too much about myself, but i just worry how they will try to change the open source scene. maybe people are reading too much in to it, but for me with windows claiming patents infringements and suse trying to cut a deal so they don't get sued. i don't like them bowing down to microsoft like that. maybe im wrong but just from reading articles that's what i get out of it. on the other hand the founder of ubuntu claims he would never sign such a deal with microsoft and maybe he would maybe he wouldn't, but i just like that kind of attitude.

i was wondering about that weasel/firefox? i had wondered why people wouldn't just use firefox. that's is pretty stupid.

[DThor]

Just to clarify, I'm working on a 64 bit system now. It's very usable, I would argue more usable that win64(platform issues aside). I *never* crash. Our workstations and nodes have uptimes typically in the months, not days or weeks. I guess I was just trying to warn you there might be a couple of issues. They all have workarounds, just don't expect a big increase in performance. SUSE, I think, still yells at you if you try to install a 32 bit distro on a 64 bit system. "Wise up!"

The beauty of OS is that they can't really change it. It's not a company that can be sued. If Redhat got sued tomorrow by MS, and went down after years of legal fees tapping their bottom line, then it would be a loss(although I'm not a fan anymore ), but it wouldn't stop those out there working on kernel drivers or new apps for the desktop. OS is too amorphous to be destroyed, sort of like the inet.

I guess, now that I write that, I realise MS came to that conclusion too, and has decided to try and *absorb* it instead of conquer it, the same approach they're taking to the net.

DT

[Quade]

The 64 bit XP has a complete 32bit emulation layer that runs under it. I run both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of Newsbin under it.

I use Opera. For my purposes it's better than FFox.