No C Drive

Buttink · Post by **Buttink** » Tue May 27, 2008 8:12 pm

There is no way i am the only person that has had this problem but i cant find it.

System: Ubuntu 8.04 with Wine 1.0rc2

Now i installed with the package manager. I then went to view my C: drive and nothing happend.....Then went to my home folder and looked for .wine and couldnt find it

Uninstalled then Reinstalled still wasn't there. bit confused why lol works on every other comp i have ever installed EVER.

Now that i say this maybe its not running with root access or something (even though the package manager asks for the password) maybe ill try sudo apt-get BRB

after digging though google i might have found something wait a sec!

If No C Drive

First uninstall Wine
2nd remove .wine folder
restart computer
reinstall Wine
run the config wine
check

IF DOESNT work

repeat 5 times untill it magicly works

austin987 · Post by **austin987** » Tue May 27, 2008 8:23 pm

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Buttink <[email protected]> wrote:

There is no way i am the only person that has had this problem but i cant find it.

System: Ubuntu 8.04 with Wine 1.0rc2

Now i installed with the package manager. I then went to view my C: drive and nothing happend.....Then went to my home folder and looked for .wine and couldnt find it

Uninstalled then Reinstalled still wasn't there. bit confused why lol works on every other comp i have ever installed EVER.

Now that i say this maybe its not running with root access or something (even though the package manager asks for the password) maybe ill try sudo apt-get BRB

DO NOT RUN AS ROOT.

Run any wine app, that will create the c drive:

$ wine notepad

or if you don't want to run an app:

$ wineboot

Buttink · Post by **Buttink** » Tue May 27, 2008 8:31 pm

i didnt run it as root but with super user thingy sudo but then again you have to have that to do anything so... yah but your right you have to run something to get your .wine folder it dont know why that didnt show up the other times but whatever

vitamin · Post by **vitamin** » Tue May 27, 2008 8:52 pm

Buttink wrote:i didnt run it as root but with super user thingy sudo but then again you have to have that to do anything so...

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Forget about superuser - you are not on windows anymore. It's that disabled POS can't do anything as normal user.

NEVER EVER RUN REGULAR PROGRAMS AS ROOT!!! (if you still didn't get it - sudo - _IS_ running something as root.)

James McKenzie · Post by **James McKenzie** » Tue May 27, 2008 10:46 pm

Buttink wrote:

There is no way i am the only person that has had this problem but i cant find it.

Several have. It's called installing Wine as a privileged user.

System: Ubuntu 8.04 with Wine 1.0rc2

Now i installed with the package manager. I then went to view my C: drive and nothing happend.....Then went to my home folder and looked for .wine and couldnt find it

Uninstalled then Reinstalled still wasn't there. bit confused why lol works on every other comp i have ever installed EVER.

Now that i say this maybe its not running with root access or something (even though the package manager asks for the password) maybe ill try sudo apt-get BRB

No. You must run Wine as a regular user, not root. There are several
problems with running Wine as root or whatever you named it. Follow the
suggestions of others given here.

NEVER, EVER RUN WINE AS ROOT. Installing it as root is a different
scenario and should be followed.

James McKenzie

James McKenzie · Post by **James McKenzie** » Tue May 27, 2008 10:47 pm

vitamin wrote:

Buttink wrote:

i didnt run it as root but with super user thingy sudo but then again you have to have that to do anything so...

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Forget about superuser - you are not on windows anymore. It's that disabled POS can't do anything as normal user.

NEVER EVER RUN REGULAR PROGRAMS AS ROOT!!! (if you still didn't get it - sudo - _IS_ running something as root.)

I forgot about sudo as well. On my MacIntosh, Darwine barfs if I try to
run it using sudo.

James McKenzie

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Wed May 28, 2008 2:35 pm

On Tuesday 27 May 2008 06:31:18 pm Buttink wrote:

i didnt run it as root but with super user thingy sudo

A difference without distinction: sudo, for all intents and purposes == root.
DO NOT USE root PRIVLEGES FOR ANYTHING unless explicitly required, and even
then, SECOND GUESS IT! IE, "Hmm, it says it needs root. Should I /really/
run it as root?" 9 times out of 10, the answer is "NO!"

but then again you have to have that to do anything so...

No, 100% of what you can do in Linux that doesn't involve system
administration can be accomplished very easily without root privleges. If
you're running into permissions problems at this point, it's probably because
running stuff as root has fucked up your permissions. Read the archives:
This is NOT new territory for this mailing list.

--
Paul Johnson
[email protected]

Explaination of .pgp part: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/rant-gpg.html
-------------- 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

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Wed May 28, 2008 2:36 pm

On Tuesday 27 May 2008 08:47:18 pm James McKenzie wrote:

vitamin wrote:
Buttink wrote:
i didnt run it as root but with super user thingy sudo but then again
you have to have that to do anything so...
Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Forget about superuser - you are not on windows
anymore. It's that disabled POS can't do anything as normal user.

NEVER EVER RUN REGULAR PROGRAMS AS ROOT!!! (if you still didn't get it -
sudo - _IS_ running something as root.)
I forgot about sudo as well. On my MacIntosh, Darwine barfs if I try to
run it using sudo.

This is a Good Thing(tm). Why won't the regular wine do this unless disabled
by some extremely obscure option?

--
Paul Johnson
[email protected]

Explaination of .pgp part: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/rant-gpg.html
-------------- 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

Paul Johnson · Post by **Paul Johnson** » Wed May 28, 2008 2:36 pm

On Tuesday 27 May 2008 06:52:31 pm vitamin wrote:

Buttink wrote:
i didnt run it as root but with super user thingy sudo but then again you
have to have that to do anything so...
Wrong wrong wrong wrong. Forget about superuser - you are not on windows
anymore. It's that disabled POS can't do anything as normal user.

Even in real, actual Windows, you shouldn't ever, ever log in as
Administrator. Programs that require Administrator permissions to run
normally should be returned to the manufacturer for refund as defective if
you're going to use it in Windows and not just fencing it off in it's own
winebottle safely away from the real world. To suggest handing over the keys
to your system to any random program on any platform is criminally stupid at
best.

--
Paul Johnson
[email protected]

Explaination of .pgp part: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/rant-gpg.html
-------------- 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

austin987 · Post by **austin987** » Wed May 28, 2008 4:10 pm

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tuesday 27 May 2008 08:47:18 pm James McKenzie wrote:
I forgot about sudo as well. On my MacIntosh, Darwine barfs if I try to
run it using sudo.
This is a Good Thing(tm). Why won't the regular wine do this unless disabled
by some extremely obscure option?

It does...sort of. I filed bugs for this a while back, and Alexandre
committed fixes. Currently:

$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ wineboot
$ sudo wine foo.exe
will fail

$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ sudo wineboot
$ wine foo.exe
will fail

$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ sudo wineboot
$ sudo wine foo.exe
will work fine (need some way for users that need raw ICMP/disk
access/etc. to work around it)

$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ wineboot
$ wine foo.exe
will work fine (and is the ideal way)

Buttink · Post by **Buttink** » Thu May 29, 2008 8:16 pm

Buttink wrote:i didnt run it as root but with super user thingy sudo but then again you have to have that to do anything so... yah but your right you have to run something to get your .wine folder it dont know why that didnt show up the other times but whatever

i did

sudo apt-get wine

... I was thinking maybe it installed and didnt get permission to right or something BUT THEN apt-get bitches that it cant if you try so you have to ...

I DIDNT run it as root, well not AS root at least. I didnt install it with root. I DIDNT run wine with sudo. ...... the words i used where not the correct ones. I understand that but i dont need 7 billion people yelling the samething lol. Most of the times my speech can get confusing.

oiaohm · Post by **oiaohm** » Thu May 29, 2008 9:57 pm

austin987 Never ever do the quoted on a Linux system

$ sudo wineboot
$ sudo wine foo.exe
will work fine (need some way for users that need raw ICMP/disk
access/etc. to work around it)

Raw ICMP and Disk access can be granted many other ways without using sudo. Sudo grants the right to a virus in wine to take out your complete OS.

I normally stick to posix capiblities to grant them.

If you distro is old or don't have posix file capiblities in kernel.

From http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/se ... aq-0.2.txt

How do I start a process with a limited set of capabilities under
another uid?

Use the sucap utility which changes uid from root without loosing any
capabilities. Normally all capabilities are cleared when changing uid
from root. The sucap utility requires the CAP_SETPCAP capability.
The following example starts updated under uid updated and gid updated
with CAP_SYS_ADMIN raised in the Effective set.

sucap updated updated execcap 'cap_sys_admin=eip' update

Or if your kernel has support of file capiblies create a version of wine with a little more permissions. setfcaps -c cap_net_raw=p -e /bin/ping

There has been no reason to run wine on Linux as root since late 2.2 linux kernels and early 2.4 linux kernels. Personally I really do wish that a bail out patch would get added to wine for all Linux systems. Even running services there is no reason for wine to be root.

austin987 · Post by **austin987** » Thu May 29, 2008 10:23 pm

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:57 PM, oiaohm <[email protected]> wrote:

austin987 Never ever do the quoted on a Linux system

$ sudo wineboot
$ sudo wine foo.exe
will work fine (need some way for users that need raw ICMP/disk
access/etc. to work around it)
Raw ICMP and Disk access can be granted many other ways without using sudo. Sudo grants the right to a virus in wine to take out your complete OS.

I normally stick to posix capiblities to grant them.

If you distro is old or don't have posix file capiblities in kernel.

From http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/se ... aq-0.2.txt

How do I start a process with a limited set of capabilities under
another uid?

Use the sucap utility which changes uid from root without loosing any
capabilities. Normally all capabilities are cleared when changing uid
from root. The sucap utility requires the CAP_SETPCAP capability.
The following example starts updated under uid updated and gid updated
with CAP_SYS_ADMIN raised in the Effective set.

sucap updated updated execcap 'cap_sys_admin=eip' update

Or if your kernel has support of file capiblies create a version of wine with a little more permissions. setfcaps -c cap_net_raw=p -e /bin/ping

There has been no reason to run wine on Linux as root since late 2.2 linux kernels and early 2.4 linux kernels. Personally I really do wish that a bail out patch would get added to wine for all Linux systems. Even running services there is no reason for wine to be root.

First example I could think of off hand. For power users that need a
way to run as root, that's the way to do so (binding to ports < 1024,
etc.)

oiaohm · Post by **oiaohm** » Thu May 29, 2008 10:52 pm

To bind to a port under 1024 is a capability switch. There is no need that simple other than to set permissions on applications or install applications any other reason to be as root is wrong.

vitamin · Post by **vitamin** » Thu May 29, 2008 11:38 pm

Buttink wrote:
Buttink wrote:i didnt run it as root but with super user thingy sudo but then again you have to have that to do anything so... yah but your right you have to run something to get your .wine folder it dont know why that didnt show up the other times but whatever
i did

sudo apt-get wine

This is installing Wine as a program into your system. But does not start it.
Wine's "configuration" - registry and "fake c:" are created first time you run Wine. And they are created (by default) in your user's home directory. That's why running Wine as root (or for that matter any other user) will create the "fake c:" drive somewhere where you can't access it.

Buttink wrote:... I was thinking maybe it installed and didnt get permission to right or something BUT THEN apt-get bitches that it cant if you try so you have to ...

Correct. Installing a program into your system requires root privileges.

Pavel Troller · Post by **Pavel Troller** » Fri May 30, 2008 12:21 am

I normally stick to posix capiblities to grant them.

If you distro is old or don't have posix file capiblities in kernel.

Or if your kernel has support of file capiblies create a version of wine with a little more permissions. setfcaps -c cap_net_raw=p -e /bin/ping

Hi!
I think that only an unstable/experimental distro can have file capabilities,
because this feature is not present in the standard kernel and it exists only
as an unofficial, highly experimental patch. Even more, this patch is not
POSIX compliant, which is probably the main reason for which it's not in the
kernel yet.
So, I agree it's good to have, but I will not patch my kernel with this until
it's proven stable and ready for a production usage.

With regards, Pavel Troller

oiaohm · Post by **oiaohm** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:25 am

Pavel Troller posix file capiblities is main line since 2.6.24 and expermental flag removed on 2.6.25.

Your information is slightly out of date.

oiaohm · Post by **oiaohm** » Fri May 30, 2008 3:42 am

http://lwn.net/Articles/280279/ 2.6.26 will be going even more down the capabilities path Pavel Troller.

Note the first section of capabilities has been in the kernel for years. The more powerful forms are appearing in the most current kernels.

Also the patch that went mainline is not a breach of Posix. Posix file capabilities only ever got as far as a working paper.

Note posix file capabilities are to replace or limit sudo bits. It does make sense for distribution to use them. Also lives threw if users disable the LSM's.

Pavel Troller · Post by **Pavel Troller** » Fri May 30, 2008 6:01 am

Pavel Troller posix file capiblities is main line since 2.6.24 and expermental flag removed on 2.6.25.

Your information is slightly out of date.

Oh, thanks for your information!
I was referencing this package, which still is not in the kernel (and maybe
will never be):

http://www.olafdietsche.de/linux/capabi ... 8.patch.gz

It looks like a different implementation of the same.
Thanks for the clarification, I've found my kernel (2.6.25.4) already capable
of file caps, I just didn't know about it yet

. But it's still marked
as EXPERIMENTAL in the menuconfig screen.

With regards, Pavel Troller