The "Linux questions (and other stuff)" thread

[nickdalzell]

Yeah, Ark can pretty much replace WinZip but still, so many exceptions. Why can't Linux just choose one format and leave it at that? What could be simpler than a ZIP file? Is there any advantage to having everything in dozens of different extracting archives?

 

[EarlyMon]

Yeah, Ark can pretty much replace WinZip but still, so many exceptions. Why can't Linux just choose one format and leave it at that? What could be simpler than a ZIP file? Is there any advantage to having everything in dozens of different extracting archives?

History.

Unix was wrapping filesystems in tape archives - tar - long before zip was around.

And while dos users were trying to sort out what version to use, people with workstations were shaking their heads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PKZIP

So why doesn't the Linux world conform to some standard the way Windows does?

Momentum I suppose.

Look at how long it took for Windows to include what everyone was using as a native facility.

PS - tar has understood owners and permissions for quite a while.

Bzip simply adds what it needed - higher compression.

 

[Dngrsone]

Why can't Linux just choose one format and leave it at that? What could be simpler than a ZIP file?

Because then it would be MacOS.

Or Windows.

Yes, there are a variety of archiving tools out there, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. But that is the point. Linux is about choice.

 

[mikedt]

Yeah, Ark can pretty much replace WinZip but still, so many exceptions. Why can't Linux just choose one format and leave it at that? What could be simpler than a ZIP file? Is there any advantage to having everything in dozens of different extracting archives?

I believe zip was originally encumbered with PKware software patents and other IP issues, and therefore wasn't free, so couldn't be distributed and used without licensing and royalty payments, rather like MP3. That's we have Gzip, GNUzip, frequently used in open source. Linux most things are Gzip or Bzip. Mac OS X It's DMG primarily.

Windows compression is where I thought there's quite a few different compression technologies used, like rar, zip, 7zip, arc, etc. That hasn't settled on just one.

 

[EarlyMon]

Native compression from the Finder (the file explorer) in OS X is zip, not dmg. And it supports all the *nix compressions as well.

It's not the 90s anymore.

 

[nickdalzell]

Really? In OS X, I've downloaded and installed software for my Mac outside the App Store and it has always had a DMG extension. I think you are referring to BIN and SIT files. Oh, I remember the era of StuffIt Expander too well...

Even Valve's Steam comes in a DMG file.

 

[mikedt]

Native compression from the Finder (the file explorer) in OS X is zip, not dmg. And it supports all the *nix compressions as well.

It's not the 90s anymore.

Now I thought it was DMG for software distribution, because nearly every Mac application I download is DMG, like Chrome or Firefox. Means disk image, doesn't it? - because you "mount" and open them like a disk. I know the Finder does compress to zip though.

 

[EarlyMon]

And professionally-packaged Windows software comes in msi files managed by installers by NSIS or InstallShield or the like.

And I guess that they can be packaged in a zip file rather than an appropriate image.

But zip files have never been the de facto way to install things on Windows.

And DMG is pretty handy as a native container format. But it's not the only one and it's not required.

As for my 90s comment, I was questioning the idea that Macs did things only in limited ways like Windows.

For installing Linux tools on a Mac, use Fink -

http://fink.thetis.ig42.org/

For other software, use DMG. Or a zip file. Or a zip file containing a PKG. Or a tar.

Which I think that two of you know.

 

[MoodyBlues]

Hell they even make extracting files convoluted.

How? I don't get confused at all extracting files in Linux.

In Windows just use WinZip and done!

It's been a long time since I unzipped anything on a window$ box, so I have no recollection one way or the other about WinZip's ability to automatically and with no effort from the user unzip a multi-nested archive, like the one that sparked this discussion. So, what, you'd just click on it in window$ [whatever the hell their file explorer is called] and it would recursively unzip each of the nested files, correctly creating directories/subdirectories per their structure?

 

[wyndslash]

You can open and view the zipped files in winzip, yes, at least per my experience with using it.

 

[wyndslash]

Nick's worries is making me wonder whether I can even handle linux :/

 

[mikedt]

Emoji in Linux. cguru:

A couple of recent threads I've posted in recently have brought up the subject of Emoji.
Emoji - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In China we frequently do use this, as well being very popular in Japan of course. So I wanted to see how well it's supported in Linux(Linux Mint). By default it doesn't, and there are no Emoji fonts in the repos AFAIK. But it's actually quite easy, just have to install a font called Symbola. Directions can be found here...
Make Emoji Work in Linux - Kirsle.net

 

[wyndslash]

A foreigner friend of mine can't understand why I use tons of smileys and emoji in chat lol

 

[mikedt]

Hell they even make extracting files convoluted. In Windows just use WinZip and done!

Hope you registered and paid your $29.95 for it, because WinZip is not free. :smokingsomb: Although Windows has supported zip compression natively since XP AFAIK.

 

[wyndslash]

Hope you registered and paid your $29.95 for it, because WinZip is not free. :smokingsomb: Although Windows has supported zip compression since XP AFAIK.

It's funny because I got mine from them but unlike the ms office trial, you can keep using it for free.

 

[argedion]

Nick's worries is making me wonder whether I can even handle linux :/

I wouldn't let this deter you. You can do it with our help of course

 

[wyndslash]

All I really need is to get skype working on linux on a chromebook and I'll be happy

 

[nickdalzell]

Oh, skype runs but I had to jump through hoops to get it to run. It wasn't a simple 'download from their site and double click on it' the way Windows was. Took me half an hour. I can help you though as I remember the way I had to do it. It runs alright not sure of the headset thing.

Chromebooks have only one distro compatible with them. The *buntu based 12.04 LTS version. When you try installing the file from Skype's website for that version it gives you a 'architecture not supported' error and aborts. There is no 'do it anyway' button either. Have to fire up the terminal, add the repo PPA and update and try again using the -f flag.

It obviously runs fine so like Google Play Store with its mostly-false 'not compatible with your device' stuff, Linux has a very picky installer as well, often assuming something is wrong when in fact it ain't, making something simple into something convoluted like most things Linux.

MikeDT's issue with installing Google Chrome and the package installer refusing to cooperate is a perfect example of what I experience. Every. Time. If there is any way to force the installer to install without checking for that compatibility that would make things easier for myself and anyone having the same problem. I know how to fix the Play Store via hacking build.prop so is there a Linux version of the same thing, where the package installer installs regardless?

 

[palmtree5]

Oh, skype runs but I had to jump through hoops to get it to run. It wasn't a simple 'download from their site and double click on it' the way Windows was. Took me half an hour. I can help you though as I remember the way I had to do it. It runs alright not sure of the headset thing.

Chromebooks have only one distro compatible with them. The *buntu based 12.04 LTS version. When you try installing the file from Skype's website for that version it gives you a 'architecture not supported' error and aborts. There is no 'do it anyway' button either. Have to fire up the terminal, add the repo PPA and update and try again using the -f flag.

It obviously runs fine so like Google Play Store with its mostly-false 'not compatible with your device' stuff, Linux has a very picky installer as well, often assuming something is wrong when in fact it ain't, making something simple into something convoluted like most things Linux.

MikeDT's issue with installing Google Chrome and the package installer refusing to cooperate is a perfect example of what I experience. Every. Time. If there is any way to force the installer to install without checking for that compatibility that would make things easier for myself and anyone having the same problem. I know how to fix the Play Store via hacking build.prop so is there a Linux version of the same thing, where the package installer installs regardless?

Type the following into a terminal and press ENTER:

man apt-get

 

[saptech]

I'm not sure why Nick have so many issues installing software, even if it's not in your Linux version repositories, which should be the first way to install software.

Here is a snapshot of me downloading Skype and double clicking it to start the install. It is not in my distro repository and I may have an issue installing it, since this version is a Fedora Skype version.

I'm not going to install it because I don't need it, but it just show how double clicking the downloaded file works for me.

 

[MoodyBlues]

You can open and view the zipped files in winzip, yes, at least per my experience with using it.

Yes, but does it automatically and with no effort on the user's part recursively extract nested files?

 

[argedion]

Yes, but does it automatically and with no effort on the user's part recursively extract nested files?

I think the answer is a big NO

 

[MoodyBlues]

Oh, skype runs but I had to jump through hoops to get it to run. It wasn't a simple 'download from their site and double click on it' the way Windows was. Took me half an hour. I can help you though as I remember the way I had to do it. It runs alright not sure of the headset thing.

It took me less than ten minutes, as documented by the screenshots I posted--and the only reason it took THAT long was because I was documenting the process setting up and taking screenshots.

Chromebooks have only one distro compatible with them. The *buntu based 12.04 LTS version. When you try installing the file from Skype's website for that version it gives you a 'architecture not supported' error and aborts.

NO, it does not. At least not for me or anyone else I know, other than Nick. Kindly view the screenshots I posted documenting the CRAZY EASINESS of installing it on my Chromebook.

There is no 'do it anyway' button either. Have to fire up the terminal, add the repo PPA and update and try again using the -f flag.

Not me. See the screenshots.

It obviously runs fine so like Google Play Store with its mostly-false 'not compatible with your device' stuff, Linux has a very picky installer as well, often assuming something is wrong when in fact it ain't, making something simple into something convoluted like most things Linux.

@wyndslash, I hope you won't get discouraged by comments like these. I don't know how to word it, exactly, but...Nick's experience with Linux is NOT the norm.

MikeDT's issue with installing Google Chrome and the package installer refusing to cooperate is a perfect example of what I experience. Every. Time. If there is any way to force the installer to install without checking for that compatibility that would make things easier for myself and anyone having the same problem. I know how to fix the Play Store via hacking build.prop so is there a Linux version of the same thing, where the package installer installs regardless?

Here's where you're completely losing me: How is it that we can have identical computers (Acer Chromebook C710-2487) yet our experiences vary so wildly?

Same brand of computer? Check.
Same model? Check.
Same architecture? Check.
Same pre-installed operating system? Check.
Same user-installed operating system? Check.
Same method of installing the OS? Check.
Same results? NO! A resounding no.

So where is it falling apart? :hmmmm2:

 

[EarlyMon]

Chromebooks support a number of releases, see my earlier posts.

Many packages may only be available on the x86 types, not the ARM Chromebooks.

Just rounding out the info.

 

[nickdalzell]

my Chromebook is an Intel CPU. but no matter what i search for, regarding the Acer C7, the only distro shown is ChrUbuntu 12.04 LTS. you can turn it into Kubuntu easily but that's it. no Fedora, SuSE, or Mint anywhere to be seen.

Moody, the reason our experiences vary has more to do with your 20+ years of UNIX experience while my life has mostly been Mac and Windows. i only started getting into Linux like in the early 2000s. my earlier computer memories was dealing in TRS-DOS, CP/M and MS-DOS. i missed the Amiga era completely so i never got into all the 'boing-boing' stuff.

I can assure you, my experience is far better in VectorLinux 6.0. unfortunately, that version is so dated it hardly supports newer hardware, and of course, will never support the Chromebook.