OK, so now I have AntiX installed on my old laptop and plan to use it as a semi-portable device that I can throw into the car and use to download software and files while at establishments offering wifi connections, etc.
Nonetheless, as I download apps I'm tempted to try them in AntiX and wondering if there's any preliminaries I need to understand before even trying.
Taking Audacity (a popular sound manipulation software, that many people know) as an example:
a) I downloaded audacity-minsrc-2.0.0.tar.bz2
b) Opened that with the Archive Manager, File Roller, and extracted the files.
c) I then opened audacity-src-2.0.0 and looked for something like an install.exe
d) I opened install-sh but nothing happened… (I was a bit surprised that other files with the document/gear icon all had suffixes like .sh .guess .sub etc. but in this one the sh is preceeded by a dash)
e) I opened the ReadMe file,
Doing some more reading, it seems that my AntiX install may not have what it takes to install or run this program.
And here’s where my questions start. Things like computer horsepower, speed, and space (all of which may affect the ability to load and run an application successfully) aside…is there any “homework” I need to do before attempting to install and run an application written for linux:
1) It seems every distro comes with a set of applications the distro-buter believes go well with that type of distro. Can one selectively remove or replace these applications without adversely affecting the distro in question?
2) For any particular distro, do I need to research whether the distro—in native form--will support that application. How does one do this?
3) In the case of AntiX, I know that it “debian based”. I noticed in randomly reading an article “How to run Audacity 1.3 on an Eee PC” that the “Eee PC” also has something to do with debian and that Audacity on this platform requires WINE. I assume WINE is a class library that runs under debian that Audacity needs to call. Is this true?
4) If 3 is true, does that mean I have to locate WINE and somehow install it into AntiX before attempting to install Audacity?
5) If 4 is true, does that mean WINE will somehow recognize the install-sh file?
6) Is this the kind of procedure one needs to go through when attempting to install and run most Linux applications in most Linux distros?
(Note: I assume that the bigger [and more bloated] the distro is [e.g. the …butus] that the install procedure more closely approximates that under Windows, namely, find the .exe, run it, and follow the on-screen instructions.)
topic title: Apps and Distros
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
-
JXRPosts: 57
- Joined: 16 Apr 2012
-
afab4Posts: 279
- Joined: 17 Oct 2009
#2
You can install Audacity via Synaptic Package Manager (in the antiX menu) and also by using APT.
In a root terminal:
In the same root terminal:
I have had Audacity installed on my antiX boxes since antiX-8.
There is a brief help file in Synaptic Package Manager to help get you started.
If you want to use APT for package installation this tutorial is excellent:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://manual.aptosid.com/en/sys-admin-apt-en.htm"
linktext was:"http://manual.aptosid.com/en/sys-admin-apt-en.htm"
====================================
antix"Wiki" here:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://antix.mepis.org/index.php?title=Main_Page"
linktext was:"http://antix.mepis.org/index.php?title=Main_Page"
====================================
Debian handbook here:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/"
linktext was:"http://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/"
====================================
WINE is an application run inside a Linux distro. WINE will allow you to run native Windows applications that cannot be found in the Linux repositories.
I have never used WINE as I have for the most part been able to find Linux equivilents of the Windows programs I previously used.
In a root terminal:
Code: Select all
apt-get update<enter>Code: Select all
apt-get install audacity<enter>There is a brief help file in Synaptic Package Manager to help get you started.
If you want to use APT for package installation this tutorial is excellent:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://manual.aptosid.com/en/sys-admin-apt-en.htm"
linktext was:"http://manual.aptosid.com/en/sys-admin-apt-en.htm"
====================================
antix"Wiki" here:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://antix.mepis.org/index.php?title=Main_Page"
linktext was:"http://antix.mepis.org/index.php?title=Main_Page"
====================================
Debian handbook here:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/"
linktext was:"http://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/"
====================================
WINE is an application run inside a Linux distro. WINE will allow you to run native Windows applications that cannot be found in the Linux repositories.
I have never used WINE as I have for the most part been able to find Linux equivilents of the Windows programs I previously used.
-
nadir
Posts 0 nadir
#3
Just to give the idea, let me stop here. Because:
Many of the big Gnu/LInux distributions offer binaries (pre-compiled packages), which you can install by a package manager. rpm (red had packagemanager) and deb (debian packages) are two big ones (big -> often used).
In such distribtions there barely is a need to compile software yourself. All distributions based on the debian-package-management come with ca 30000 packages.
There is also the Mepis community repository, which offers some packages not to be found.
Even if the package you want to install is not to be found that way, usually there is a similar tool to be found (and often a better one).
audacity can, like already said, be installed straight away.
distributions like antiX often contain packages you won't find in original Debian repos (say the package"ceni", but i think more). That is one of the point of distributions (else everyone could use Debian): offer a customized distro for certain needs (be it usuability, be it look and feel, be it for slow hardware, for comfort ... and so forth).
If one really wants to compile packages one usually wouldn't simply compile them, but create a deb package. There are several good how-to's, one by stevepusser.
That way one will make sure that all packages work well together (let's call the opposite dependency hell, which once, in the past, was a problem). Building a deb-package can be hard or easy, it depends. If one can't one should give up instead of simply installilng it by"config" &&"make" &&"make install" (if one wants to avoid problems in the long run. If that doesn't matter one can do what one thinks is the best, sure).
If i compile at all, seldom, i only do it for the fun of it, never cause there would be a need to do so
(not that it would say much if i do it or don't do it, but i think it is that way for a lot of people )
If you download compressed files to install a pckage, usually tar.bz2 or tar.gz, they have to be compiled. Also known as: compiling from source. You download the compressed file, unpack it, read the README (like you did), which often has got detailed instructions, including the dependencies you will need to install too. One well known way is to run a three step compilation after all dependencies are installed:"config","make","make install" (config and make as user, make install as root. After"make" you often can run the program without installing it with"make install", btw)Taking Audacity (a popular sound manipulation software, that many people know) as an example:
a) I downloaded audacity-minsrc-2.0.0.tar.bz2
b) Opened that with the Archive Manager, File Roller, and extracted the files.
c) I then opened audacity-src-2.0.0 and looked for something like an install.exe
d) I opened install-sh but nothing happened… (I was a bit surprised that other files with the document/gear icon all had suffixes like .sh .guess .sub etc. but in this one the sh is preceeded by a dash)
e) I opened the ReadMe file,
Just to give the idea, let me stop here. Because:
Many of the big Gnu/LInux distributions offer binaries (pre-compiled packages), which you can install by a package manager. rpm (red had packagemanager) and deb (debian packages) are two big ones (big -> often used).
In such distribtions there barely is a need to compile software yourself. All distributions based on the debian-package-management come with ca 30000 packages.
There is also the Mepis community repository, which offers some packages not to be found.
Even if the package you want to install is not to be found that way, usually there is a similar tool to be found (and often a better one).
audacity can, like already said, be installed straight away.
distributions like antiX often contain packages you won't find in original Debian repos (say the package"ceni", but i think more). That is one of the point of distributions (else everyone could use Debian): offer a customized distro for certain needs (be it usuability, be it look and feel, be it for slow hardware, for comfort ... and so forth).
If one really wants to compile packages one usually wouldn't simply compile them, but create a deb package. There are several good how-to's, one by stevepusser.
That way one will make sure that all packages work well together (let's call the opposite dependency hell, which once, in the past, was a problem). Building a deb-package can be hard or easy, it depends. If one can't one should give up instead of simply installilng it by"config" &&"make" &&"make install" (if one wants to avoid problems in the long run. If that doesn't matter one can do what one thinks is the best, sure).
If i compile at all, seldom, i only do it for the fun of it, never cause there would be a need to do so
(not that it would say much if i do it or don't do it, but i think it is that way for a lot of people )
-
JXRPosts: 57
- Joined: 16 Apr 2012
#4
Well that (i.e., using Synaptic Package Manager ) was a lot easier than I'd believed possible. I'd never imagined there was a program keeping track of the repository for programs available to a particular Linux distribution system (e.g., Debian). I'm not--certainly at this stage--interested in compiling from source.
Nonetheless, this thread brings up a couple questions:
- WINE: You say:"WINE will allow you to run native Windows applications..." I've asked if Linux-substitute programs could allow me to continue to execute and submit work I do that needs to be in Word suite program (Word...PowerPoint) or Adobe (Photoshop...Illustrator) suite formats. More specifically, I wondered if I could use a Linux app to get the file or image to where I needed to get it (one only uses a fraction of the functionality of any program anyway) and then save it in a format that could be opened by one of these programs (on a Windows machine) and do a SaveAs the (say) Word version. The response I got was that if I was required to work in and submit files in the formats recognized by these programs I would probably have to stick to Windows running Windows apps. But given what you've said about WINE, is WINE a way someone can install and run the MSOffice Suite or Adobe Suite..under Linux.
- Synaptic Package Manager: Is SPM the final word on what can be installed in a Linux distribution? In other words, if you can't find the Linux app in a SPM repository, it can't be installed?
- SPM and different distros?: If SPM is the [Debian] Package Manager used by both Ubuntu and AntiX distributions, why would one ever want to load a memory-hungry distro like Ubuntu and then install the fairly memory intensive programs one wants to run under that OS? Why not just install a lightweight like AntiX (or Puppy Linux); let SPM sort out and take care of installation requirements; thus allowing those applications as much memory as possible because the underlying OS isn't hogging resources?
Nonetheless, this thread brings up a couple questions:
- WINE: You say:"WINE will allow you to run native Windows applications..." I've asked if Linux-substitute programs could allow me to continue to execute and submit work I do that needs to be in Word suite program (Word...PowerPoint) or Adobe (Photoshop...Illustrator) suite formats. More specifically, I wondered if I could use a Linux app to get the file or image to where I needed to get it (one only uses a fraction of the functionality of any program anyway) and then save it in a format that could be opened by one of these programs (on a Windows machine) and do a SaveAs the (say) Word version. The response I got was that if I was required to work in and submit files in the formats recognized by these programs I would probably have to stick to Windows running Windows apps. But given what you've said about WINE, is WINE a way someone can install and run the MSOffice Suite or Adobe Suite..under Linux.
- Synaptic Package Manager: Is SPM the final word on what can be installed in a Linux distribution? In other words, if you can't find the Linux app in a SPM repository, it can't be installed?
- SPM and different distros?: If SPM is the [Debian] Package Manager used by both Ubuntu and AntiX distributions, why would one ever want to load a memory-hungry distro like Ubuntu and then install the fairly memory intensive programs one wants to run under that OS? Why not just install a lightweight like AntiX (or Puppy Linux); let SPM sort out and take care of installation requirements; thus allowing those applications as much memory as possible because the underlying OS isn't hogging resources?
-
nadir
Posts 0 nadir
#5
About Wine i don't know.
The next question i don't fully understand.
You got a distro, and it comes with its default repositories.
If you need programs which aren't to be found inside of them you can:
- add repositories which offers them
- compile from source
- use an already compiled deb-package and install it with"dpkg -i packagename.deb"
The best is to stick to the default repositories a distro comes with. In my opinion. I avoid adding third-party repos as if it was the devil himself.
The advantage of using a repo is that the package will get updated automatically.
If you install from source or with a deb, you will need to take care of keeping the app up to date yourself.
The advantage of using a *.deb over a from-source is that you will inform the packagemanagement about the existence of said package (say uninstalling it will be painless).
-----
Your last question: There might be lots of reasons why people do it this way or that way. I prefer to start small and add what i need, but the other way around, using an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink distro has its advantages too. It depends on what one wants (well: duh).
The next question i don't fully understand.
You got a distro, and it comes with its default repositories.
If you need programs which aren't to be found inside of them you can:
- add repositories which offers them
- compile from source
- use an already compiled deb-package and install it with"dpkg -i packagename.deb"
The best is to stick to the default repositories a distro comes with. In my opinion. I avoid adding third-party repos as if it was the devil himself.
The advantage of using a repo is that the package will get updated automatically.
If you install from source or with a deb, you will need to take care of keeping the app up to date yourself.
The advantage of using a *.deb over a from-source is that you will inform the packagemanagement about the existence of said package (say uninstalling it will be painless).
-----
Your last question: There might be lots of reasons why people do it this way or that way. I prefer to start small and add what i need, but the other way around, using an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink distro has its advantages too. It depends on what one wants (well: duh).