Random non-M$ OS babbling

Remove all ads!

Well, before they were Intel based, they had Motorola CPUs...and we all know how DotW feels about Moto...

 

Does anyone knows how I could install Wine in my 64 bits Ubuntu? So far I haven't had luck since this software is designed for 32 bits Linux. Anyone?

 

WINE is a huge load of crap. Just what Winblows applications are you trying to emulate?

And Ubuntu... come on man, try Fedora 8 or something.

 

What version of Ubuntu are you using?
The easiest way would be the following:

7.04

Code:

wget -q http://wine.budgetdedicated.com/apt/387EE263.gpg -O- | sudo apt-key add -
sudo wget http://wine.budgetdedicated.com/apt/sources.list.d/feisty.list -O /etc/apt/sources.list.d/winehq.list
sudo aptitude install wine

7.10

Code:

wget -q http://wine.budgetdedicated.com/apt/387EE263.gpg -O- | sudo apt-key add -
sudo wget http://wine.budgetdedicated.com/apt/sources.list.d/gutsy.list -O /etc/apt/sources.list.d/winehq.list
sudo aptitude install wine

 

Well, Windows games mainly, isn't the main point of Wine anyway? And personally Ubuntu is fine with for me. I'm not very Linux literate (yet) and Ubuntu offers an easier friendly interface for me to experiment the various Linux commands.

I'll try the code and see what happens, thanks for tips

 

IMO, running XP through VirtualBox is a way more reliable (if slower) method of running windows applications than trying to fiddle with WINE and stuff...

 

If playing games that aren't too demanding, VMware also could be a viable option. I've long ran a Slackware box with VMware for Linux running an XP virtual machine, and it worked great... of course I play old games, so I'm not sure VMware is viable for more recent games.

If only there was a way to emulate the physical video card instead of those crappy VMware SVGA II virtual cards...

 

@DoTW: Your time will come!! (to quote Iron Maiden...) On a more serious note, I think the guys will have to hack the DirectX 9 API in order to accomplish that and that is illegal...so right now I don't know if we can really have that kind of integrated support.

 

My tests with Debian with VMware have proven satisfying, and I'm thinking about allocating a full HD to Debian (found an old 16 GB from my aunt's old Celeron 600MHz), or maybe even completly replacing Slackware in favor of Debian.

Slackware has some built-in basic firewalling rules which are adequate - Debian has no such thing.

Basically, I need a little help setting up firewall rules to secure my Debian system - be it a firewall solution, or setting up the IP tables.

What would you guys suggest? I've tried Firestarter, but it requires the big pile of stinking crap, sorry excuse of bloated trash called GNOME, and I DO NOT have GNOME, nor do I want it - I HATE GNOME. I hate KDE just as bad. Xfce & Fluxbox FOREVER.

 

I don't remember the name of the firewall I use...but just apt-cache search firewall and you get a bunch of options laid out for you. As for which program to use, I also highly recommend firestarter. Gnome isn't a problem for me as I'm running Gnome based Ubuntu anyway!

 

I've thought about that... but since my system does not have GNOME installed, it will not configure because of a GNOME component missing, so I never properly installed Firestarter.

I've looked into Aptitude, and there's a firewalling tool called "Fireflier". Looking at the Fireflier homepage, turns out this project is no longer actively developped.

Oh well. I'll give it a shot nontheless when I have a few minutes on my hands - posting that from a philosophy class

*EDIT* Okay, I've tried installing Fireflier, without success. The Fireflier client requires a package from gtk, which Aptitude says is not available. Looks like I'm gonna have to grab GTK.

 

What do you think of IceWM?

 

Never tried IceWM, TBH.

How does it compare to Xfce & Fluxbox in terms of speed and usability?

And while you're here, Morgy... remember my WM thread about FreeBSD? Well, I compiled Fluxbox from scratch (went without a hitch), created a .xinitrc file in my home directory to override the settings, and added the line "exec fluxbox", and I got an error upon starting X. I stopped to think, and realized this walkthrough assumed Fluxbox was built from the ports collection, which is not the case. Should I point my .xinitrc to Fluxbox's full path? Does installing Flux from the ports collection installs it in a different path than by compiling it manually?

 

I've never tried fluxbox since I heard that would take too many steps to actually get working compared to IceWM.

Paths shouldn't really matter right? You can have a symbolic link, or a set of symbolic links, that point to the correct file. I really love these things, with Lisp and SLIME, I put symbolic links to asd files (start files for loading libraries) in ~/.sbcl/sites/. The libraries can then be anywhere on the system, but I can simply load up the library with (require :*name of lib*).

Edit:
Reading up on fluxbox, I see that they are essentialy the same thing. That is, just a window manager, that's it. It's very fast and it seems that everything can be configured. My desktop is simply an empty grey screen (I need something like pcmanfm to show a wallpaper), and all my important tools are bound to key combos.

 

Morgy, I gave IceWM a try. I don't like it. I think I'll stick with Fluxbox/Xfce.

I made a virtual Debian machine to see if I couldn't finally secure it with a firewall. Etch included Firestarter, so I installed it.

At first I had some problems - starting the firewall would block my Internet connection. I scratched my head for a little while, then I realized my net comes in through ppp0 (I have a PPPoE connection), not eth0. I killed the firewall, brought up the connection, and selected ppp0 instead of eth0 and it works great now. Yes, yes, I know, Firestarter is just a GUI iptables configuration utility, but I'm no NIX expert (yet).

Is it just me or the number of blocked incoming traffic is scaringly high? I've been online for 10 minutes and it has blocked would-be inbound 12 connections.

 

If the firewall is directly connected to the Internet (probable, since you're using PPP), then.. no. Most of the connections are worms and virusses, a very small amount of the connections are not trying to break your computer.

The story goes that leaving unprotected Windows XP machines, directly hooked to the Internet, will get them infested within seconds.

 

I have no trouble believing it, Morgy. The scenario of an infested XP no longer is an issue - with Debian fully secured, I've allowed it a full HD (I loved Slackware, but package management was a total nightmare, so Slackware was abandoned in favor of Debian), and run a dual-boot alongside an XP for gaming which has been wired to the web only to activate it, with a firewall and antivirus up.

Critical attacks are linked to something called Microsoft-ds and DCOM-sm. After some googling, both seem to be Winblows-related, so I suppose those are compromised M$ systems scanning a range of IPs in the hopes to find other open M$ systems to compromise?

 

Not necessarily, it could also be compromised linux/unix and mac boxes. But yes, the connections are scans for open ports. With my father being a computer virus expert, who tells me about all the latest virusses and keeps his own collection (10.000+), I understand that having a debian box brings no garantuee for safety.

Are you running a debian stable or unstable system btw?

I don't know how your firewall works, but it would be better to completely ignore any incoming packets instead of sending TCP/UDP/ICMP disconnect packets back. The compromised systems will then learn nothing from your firewall, your system would then be a large void hole.

 

There is constant background scanning going on in the big ol' 'net. Nothing to worry about.