HOW TO START WINE

[JohnnieG]

I have WINE in PCLOS2007. However, I cannot find out how to start it and how to load Windows programs into my Linux system. Would surely appreciate some help.

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday 13 March 2008 01:37:58 pm JohnnieG wrote:

I have WINE in PCLOS2007. However, I cannot find out how to start it and
how to load Windows programs into my Linux system. Would surely appreciate
some help.

RTFM. This is answered in the wine manpage.

--
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-us ... chment.pgp

[Dan Kegel]

On 3/13/08, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thursday 13 March 2008 01:37:58 pm JohnnieG wrote:

I have WINE in PCLOS2007. However, I cannot find out how to start it and
how to load Windows programs into my Linux system. Would surely appreciate
some help.

RTFM. This is answered in the wine manpage.

I don't think telling forum users to literally RTFM is a good idea...
we opened the forum to be more friendly to newcomers.

Johnnie, ideally, you can just doubleclick on your app's setup.exe
just as you would in windows. (Or at least right click "run with wine").
Give it a try.
- Dan

[vitamin]

I have WINE in PCLOS2007. However, I cannot find out how to start it and how to load Windows programs into my Linux system. Would surely appreciate some help.

First question in FAQ.

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 13 March 2008, Dan Kegel wrote:

Johnnie, ideally, you can just doubleclick on your app's setup.exe
just as you would in windows.  (Or at least right click "run with
wine"). Give it a try.

Dan, I was under the impression that that technique was heavily frowned
upon by the wine devs and were trying to get distro packagers to knock
it off?

--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[Dan Kegel]

On 3/13/08, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thursday 13 March 2008, Dan Kegel wrote:

Johnnie, ideally, you can just doubleclick on your app's setup.exe
just as you would in windows. (Or at least right click "run with
wine"). Give it a try.

Dan, I was under the impression that that technique was heavily frowned
upon by the wine devs and were trying to get distro packagers to knock
it off?

Nope. It's what users expect, so it ought to work. Where
did you hear it was deprecated?
- Dan

[Paul Johnson]

Please use reply-to-list, not reply-to-all. I don't need two copies. Thanks.

On Thursday 13 March 2008 02:17:52 pm Dan Kegel wrote:

On 3/13/08, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thursday 13 March 2008 01:37:58 pm JohnnieG wrote:

I have WINE in PCLOS2007. However, I cannot find out how to start it
and how to load Windows programs into my Linux system. Would surely
appreciate some help.

RTFM. This is answered in the wine manpage.

I don't think telling forum users to literally RTFM is a good idea...
we opened the forum to be more friendly to newcomers.

Why bother including a manpage with wine, then?

--
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-us ... chment.pgp

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 14 March 2008, Dan Kegel wrote:

On 3/13/08, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thursday 13 March 2008, Dan Kegel wrote:

Johnnie, ideally, you can just doubleclick on your app's
setup.exe just as you would in windows. (Or at least right
click "run with wine"). Give it a try.

Dan, I was under the impression that that technique was heavily
frowned upon by the wine devs and were trying to get distro
packagers to knock it off?

Nope. It's what users expect, so it ought to work. Where
did you hear it was deprecated?
- Dan

Here:

http://wiki.winehq.org/FAQ#head-fb882e4 ... c483bb9aaf

Perhaps not deprecated, just discouraged. It's an interesting question
though - you probably don't want the user to double click an installed
app in .wine/drive_c/Program Files - there should be a .desktop for
that. But you probably DO want exactly that to happen if the .exe is an
installer on an install CD.

How to tell them apart?

--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[Dan Kegel]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote:

Dan, I was under the impression that that technique was heavily
frowned upon by the wine devs and were trying to get distro
packagers to knock it off?

Nope. It's what users expect, so it ought to work. Where
did you hear it was deprecated?

http://wiki.winehq.org/FAQ#head-fb882e4 ... c483bb9aaf

Thanks. I've updated that. The URL changed slightly,
http://wiki.winehq.org/FAQ#head-8bbdee4 ... be3e2cd240
Look better now?
- Dan

[Dan Kegel]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

RTFM. This is answered in the wine manpage.

I don't think telling forum users to literally RTFM is a good idea...
we opened the forum to be more friendly to newcomers.

Why bother including a manpage with wine, then?

I'm all for writing good documentation, and hoping
people will read it, but the attitude embedded in the
'F' of RTFM is really obnoxious. Using that phrase
when talking with actual users is like saying
"Go away, you're too stupid to use our tool."

If we want Linux and Wine to take off, we need to learn
to make the average user feel at home -- even those
who don't read documentation. It's a challenge, but
I think we can do it.
- Dan

[JohnnieG]

I appreciate the help and the comments. I was able to load my Dreamweaver -

Linux and Wine MUST become more user friendly in we hope to capture more of the PC market.

Thanks again

[Paul Johnson]

On Thursday 13 March 2008 06:44:30 pm JohnnieG wrote:

I appreciate the help and the comments. I was able to load my Dreamweaver
-

Linux and Wine MUST become more user friendly in we hope to capture more of
the PC market.

Someone is quick to forget history, it seems. It's plenty friendly, it's just
not Windows. You just can't make the same assumptions and expect to get
congruent results; there's an inevitable learning curve to any software one
is not familiar with.

--
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-us ... chment.pgp

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 14 March 2008, Dan Kegel wrote:

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Alan McKinnon

<[email protected]> wrote:

Nope. It's what users expect, so it ought to work. Where
did you hear it was deprecated?

http://wiki.winehq.org/FAQ#head-fb882e4 ... 37503c483b
b9aaf

Thanks. I've updated that. The URL changed slightly,
http://wiki.winehq.org/FAQ#head-8bbdee4 ... 703be3e2cd
240 Look better now?

Yes, that's much better and more clearly tells the user what to do,
thanks.

Now the next step is to get them to read it


--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[David Gerard]

On 14/03/2008, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Someone is quick to forget history, it seems. It's plenty friendly, it's just
not Windows. You just can't make the same assumptions and expect to get
congruent results; there's an inevitable learning curve to any software one
is not familiar with.

A known interface counts as "friendly" to people unfamiliar with a
given new thing.


- d.

[Timeout]

A known interface counts as "friendly" to people unfamiliar with a
given new thing.


- d.

I am then lucky to have learned using a computer in the dos era (pre-windows).
I found myself again with cd, cd.., although del is now rm.
For the younger generation it may not be that easy.

[Gardou Jérôme]

Back to the "Why does this aspect of linux doesn't look like the Windows one?" thread.
I'm sorry to say it like that, but this desn't matter. f someone does not liike the look and feel of liunx desktops, go to see if Windows or MacOS can do it for you.

Anyway, taht is not a Wine problem. It is distro and/or Desktop environments choices.

Timeout <[email protected]> a écrit :
David Gerard wrote:

A known interface counts as "friendly" to people unfamiliar with a
given new thing.


- d.

I am then lucky to have learned using a computer in the dos era (pre-windows).
I found myself again with cd, cd.., although del is now rm.
For the younger generation it may not be that easy.










---------------------------------
Envoyé avec Yahoo! Mail.
Une boite mail plus intelligente.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-us ... chment.htm

[Paul Johnson]

On Friday 14 March 2008 03:19:18 am David Gerard wrote:

On 14/03/2008, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Someone is quick to forget history, it seems. It's plenty friendly, it's
just not Windows. You just can't make the same assumptions and expect to
get congruent results; there's an inevitable learning curve to any
software one is not familiar with.

A known interface counts as "friendly" to people unfamiliar with a
given new thing.

Name any software that's friendly by that definition, and I'll show you a
liar.

--
Paul Johnson
[email protected]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-us ... chment.pgp

[Timeout]

In any case you can call Windows *user friendly* when everything runs well or you like to be taken the choice on what to do with your computer.
In my case, when Linux got corrupt, I did love the many possibilities of the shell to be able to get hold of my data before reformatting the disk. Try to access to a window partition when the boot menu of Windows got corrupted? Do you call it user friendly?

Some say Windows Explorer is user friendly because it has 10 columns if you want, I personally don't like things to be so in details.

What is good for one person may not be good to the other. It is however sad that the software developers only make programs for only one O/S forcing people to work day for day on an environment that is not up to their needs - and I am not talking about the open source replacements, then don't even cover 10% of the functions.

[James McKenzie]

Paul Johnson wrote:

On Friday 14 March 2008 03:19:18 am David Gerard wrote:

On 14/03/2008, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Someone is quick to forget history, it seems. It's plenty friendly, it's
just not Windows. You just can't make the same assumptions and expect to
get congruent results; there's an inevitable learning curve to any
software one is not familiar with.

A known interface counts as "friendly" to people unfamiliar with a
given new thing.

Name any software that's friendly by that definition, and I'll show you a
liar.

Paul:

You must not have been around when Window95 was introduced. It was a
massive leap forward. Too bad the Mac interface did not fair as well.

Linux with Gnome or KDE is much second-class, or even third-class as far
as a user friendly interface. And before you decide that I'm
anti-Linux, I used it from 2000-2005 on an IBM Thinkpad and I still have
Fedora Core 3 or 4 installed on a hard drive around here somewhere for
that same system. I've also used every version of Windows from 2.0
through WindowsXP (I'm forced to do so at the place where I provide
help), OS/2 2.0 through OS/2 Warp 4.0, Red Hat 7.2 through 9.0, Fedora
Core 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. I've also used Slackware 1.0 (yes, I've been
around THAT long.) And I've been using a Mac since 2005. So, I think I
can formulate an opinion on user friendliness. Oh, I've used MS-DOS 2.0
through 6.22 and PC-DOS 6. I also work with several flavors of UNIX
(OpenWindows is another poor excuse for a GUI.)

James McKenzie

[L. Rahyen]

On Saturday March 15 2008 02:45:05 James McKenzie wrote:

You must not have been around when Window95 was introduced. It was a
massive leap forward. Too bad the Mac interface did not fair as well.

Yes, it was. But "was" is main word here. Difference between XP and 2000 is
much less than between Windows 3 and 95. And many people think that Vista is
much worse than XP, but other people think otherwise ("it's better"). In other
words, this is a matter of individual opinions... And almost no one today
consider Windows 95 as user-friendly (but I remember how I was using it in
the past)... So opinion can change with time (especially when you can pick up
better alternatives - say Windows XP instead of Windows 95).
"Opinions and preferences can change with time for individual user and might
be different between different users" - this is what I actually want to say
here.

Linux with Gnome or KDE is much second-class, or even third-class as far
as a user friendly interface.

This isn't true. I have used MS-DOS, and then Windows up to XP for years (and
even never tried Linux at all). But it was so ugly and slow (after few months
of active use after each reinstall) that I decided to switch to Linux
(otherwise it was just difficult to use my PC). And even today, I have
Windows XP in VMWare to run some Autodesk programs. And I'm very unhappy with
its GUI. I do not even mention here instability of Windows, etc. (and that it
is necessary to reinstall Windows from scratch sooner or later) - that's
another story.
In Linux I have not only great and convenient GUI and months of uptime but
also it's fast even after few years of use, many upgrades, etc... And BTW,
whole my family uses Linux without trouble. Even my old parents use it
successfully (they know very little about computers so good GUI is essential
for them).
So it is incorrect to say that "on Linux UI is worse than on
Windows" (or that "on Linux UI is much better than on Windows). This is a
matter of individual taste. At best we can say something like "Linux has
learning curve X for certain set of tasks Z for group of users Q, and Windows
has learning curve Y for this (or similar) group of users". But that's all.
You (or anyone else) cannot actually tell what is better for everyone.
Because for everyone it is better to have a choice.

* * *

Conclusion (and what actually I want to say). What UI is better is always
*individual* opinion (as you can see my opinion is different than yours - and
this is OK, nothing wrong here).
Someone like MacOS and think it is better than both Windows and Linux.
Someone likes Linux more than anything else... And don't say things
like "Linux UI is second-class" or that "Windows UI is second-class". This is
pointless. Why? Because there is *no* widely-accepted definitions for
these "classes". Main reason for this - lack of agreement what is perfect
user interface.
For example, all people know what is perfect circle. But no one knows what is
perfect user interface. And in fact there is no such thing at all - perfect
interface should be different for different users (and this is of course
impossible to implement reliably in modern PC's yet for obvious reasons).

So please, let's discuss something WINE related instead;
discussion "Windows or Linux: what is better?" is offtopic here (but it is of
course OK to say what we should improve in WINE to make it more
user-friendly).
Discussing individual tastes is OK but discussing whose tastes are better
*isn't*.

[James McKenzie]

Timeout wrote:

What is good for one person may not be good to the other. It is however sad that the software developers only make programs for only one O/S forcing people to work day for day on an environment that is not up to their needs - and I am not talking about the open source replacements, then don't even cover 10% of the functions.

And we have two choices, ask the developer for a native version of the
program and sometimes the developers look at the numbers and say 'We are
not going to waste resources building our program for that platform,
ever' and that has happened to me time and time again; or WE can
develop, test and implement the Windows API on various platforms to act
as a buffer, if you want to use that word, to interface Windows programs
on a UNIX/Linux based platform. That is the purpose and scope of this
project. And folks have been trying to do this since the early 1990s.
It is not the fault of this project if Microsoft wants to
change/improve/warp the functionality of a Dynamic Linked Library
between the various versions of its flagship software product, Windows.
WE have to adapt and overcome those changes. WE also have to figure out
how to support more than just 'games'. The work on Office, Photoshop,
and other 'heavy' Windows based programs amazes me. The fact that .NET
1.1 now installs and there are reports that .NET 1.1 programs now run is
fantastic. This demonstrates that Wine is growing and is the leading
Windows API interface for Linux/UNIX based systems. Of course, there
is much more work to be accomplished, but I am of the opinion that WE
can do it. Once Wine is released, maybe some of those developers will
change their minds and develop Winelib versions of their programs and we
will see more and more ported from Windows applications made available
for UNIX/Linux platforms.

James McKenzie