WineHQ
Wine Forums

Board index » WineHQ » Wine Help




 Page 1 of 3 [ 62 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next



 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:52 am 
 
I don't agree with him, but there you have it.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: loader: more stringent sanity check
To: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>
Cc: wine-devel@winehq.org


"Dan Kegel" <dank@kegel.com> writes:


Quote:
Many, many newbies are running wine as root without
really needing to. They are much more likely to screw
up their systems this way. Are you saying we should stop
advising against this?

I have seen very little evidence that anybody screwed up their system by
running Wine as root, I think that's just paranoia. Of course it's
possible in theory, but you can screw up your system by running 'cat' as
root too, that doesn't mean it needs a warning.

Pretty much the only case I'm aware of is someone's system rebooting
because an app was searching through /proc and triggered the watchdog.
That shouldn't be hard to avoid, and it's really minor compared to the
thousands of people who reboot their box as normal users just by
starting OpenGL.

So yes, I'd say stop the "don't run as root" crusade, and fix the actual
problems that running as root causes, if there are any.

--


Alexandre Julliard
julliard@winehq.org


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:20 am 
Offline
Level 4
Level 4

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:45 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Austria
I think it's a bad idea.
There is not much harm until you see what the .NET is doing once installed.

The .NET is poking it's nose in pretty much the whole Linux file system and it would not be to hard to make a .NET virus searching for Linux data files changing them as it wants.

On the other side, I am against every restriction which you can't turn off (like in Winecfg) if you wish it to, I am already suffering too much under them.


Top 
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:32 pm 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 21 March 2008 07:52:27 am Dan Kegel wrote:
Quote:
I don't agree with him, but there you have it.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: loader: more stringent sanity check
To: Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>
Cc: wine-devel@winehq.org

"Dan Kegel" <dank@kegel.com> writes:
Quote:
Many, many newbies are running wine as root without

really needing to. They are much more likely to screw
up their systems this way. Are you saying we should stop
advising against this?

I have seen very little evidence that anybody screwed up their system by
running Wine as root, I think that's just paranoia. Of course it's
possible in theory, but you can screw up your system by running 'cat' as
root too, that doesn't mean it needs a warning.

I would still recommend at least a warning, if not absolutley refusing to run
as root, if only to enforce best practices. Wine is apparently newbie fodder
these days: They probably don't know better regarding root permissions in
general. Remember, ubiquitous root-equivalent privleges by default is one of
the the things that has helped fuel the security cesspool in the Windows
world; this security model is probably one wine should be deliberately
incompatable with outside it's own emulated environment.

Quote:
So yes, I'd say stop the "don't run as root" crusade, and fix the actual
problems that running as root causes, if there are any.

What's wrong with enforcing common sense and using the OS's security model,
exactly?

- --
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH5BsrUCxPKZafKh0RAmM/AJ9KNftSKd2esVn653cQrG6tYq8LmwCgp5wy
UqsgbVyZaupdXMjAWH7jfNU=
=L/mG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Top 
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:33 pm 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

(Could we do something about the forum interface breaking threads on the
mailing list, please?)

On Friday 21 March 2008 08:20:52 am Timeout wrote:

Quote:
The .NET is poking it's nose in pretty much the whole Linux file system and
it would not be to hard to make a .NET virus searching for Linux data files
changing them as it wants.

That would be reason enough to disallow running as root, right there, AFAIAC.

Quote:
On the other side, I am against every restriction which you can't turn off
(like in Winecfg) if you wish it to, I am already suffering too much under
them.

Could you provide some examples?

- --
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH5BubUCxPKZafKh0RAmijAKD1tSM+QYCIxWkdV786PTmQRnIXWwCg8EkA
37dC8n0ehkS/xI8P02Ly7Ic=
=TM6N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:15 am 
Offline
Level 4
Level 4

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:45 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Austria
One example:

"this directory is not owned by you" affecting users in 2 ways:

1. Users of distributions which file system is 90% owned by root, thus forcing them to use root if they legitimately want to use a software installing things in the tmp directory (in some distributions owned by roots).

2. Some people on dual system placing their documents on a Windows partition on FAT system.
Please don't tell me that FAT is more than old - it is.
However as long as I am not 100% free of dual booting on Windows, I have to save my documents somewhere that they can be saved and reached on on both sides. ntfs is not possible at the moment and Linux partition is not seen on Windows.

When I am using Trados, I am not duplicating the translation memory. It is saved on a fat partition and I can at any time reuse it from the Trados installed on Windows. Using Wine as it is would have not let me using the same file for both instances and duplicating the memory goes against the purpose of the software (always finding old translated units).

If I would have not found the way to remove this limit, this would have let me to either forget about using Wine or using it as root because otherwise I would only access what is on /home/username.

For this reason, If I had a button in Winecfg for "permit the root ownership for z:/tmp or z/windows/", this would help people using java or a windows partition not having to use root.

Using root is also a misconception that a software HAS to run as root to function. Trados under Windows known to have to be installed/used as admin or it doesn't work properly. It is not that the newbee is meaning it badly - he is just making what he does under Windows.


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:01 am 
Offline
Level 8
Level 8

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 am
Posts: 1020
Alexandre Julliard. So far no one has been unlucky. That is all.

Most likely because of the so called crusade.

cat and wine are no were near in the same class. Number 1 wine can run windows viruses and known destructive trojans. cat requires some use to truly use it incorrectly.

Its not like wine has a embedded anti-virus to stop it from running those evil things. There is no reason from a security point of view to have wine running with full root capability's on Linux kernels 2.6.24+ Even before with selinux granting privilege.

Its not the watch dog I am worried about. As root you can basically delete every file on a Linux system unless selinux or some other security system is set against it. We are all ready having cases of people getting there wine fully virus infected.

Its only a matter of time if people are running as root with complete default base access wine provides ie Z drive for someone to have a virus in wine nuke there install.

Rebooting box is one thing. Complete Loss of OS is another. Running opengl at worst is a lockup. System is still there to be repaired.

If you want wine ruinable from root user for security reasons it really should ask for its own user like any other service and downgrade to that user. To many files own to root.

Or be like all Linux demons wrapped by selinux to stop them killing the rest of the system. Sorry not all distros provide this.

The true problem is Windows is a virus infected mess and Wine has no protection against it. To give users a fighting chance root should be off limits until that is fixed. Since if they need the extra capability's they can upgrade there Linux kernel. Other platforms will have to provide there own ways around it.


Top 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:25 am 
Offline
Wine Developer
Wine Developer

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:19 pm
Posts: 2383
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 6:15 AM, Timeout <wineforum-user@winehq.org> wrote:
Quote:
One example:

"this directory is not owned by you" affecting users in 2 ways:

1. Users of distributions which file system is 90% owned by root, thus forcing them to use root if they legitimately want to use a software installing things in the tmp directory (in some distributions owned by roots).
You can still run programs from the temp directory, you just can't
have your wineprefix be there (if you run $ sudo wineprefixcreate, it
allows an exception).

Quote:
2. Some people on dual system placing their documents on a Windows partition on FAT system.
You can still do this, just make a directory somewhere, and navigate
to it from Z:. This prevents the wineprefix from being in a root owned
directory, not accessing files where the user has permission.


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:25 am 
Offline
Level 4
Level 4

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:45 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Austria
I agree with you.

First the user has to install the wineprefix as user and only then the user may be able to set the security level - valid only for this wineprefix outside root.
If there is no wineprefix in /root, it will then not run that easily as root and winecfg in root should not work.
At the moment, if after "make install" I am forgetting to go outside root modus, the wineprefix is not created in /home/user but in root's own directory in /root and from there it can access anything.


Top 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:34 am 
Offline
Wine Developer
Wine Developer

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:19 pm
Posts: 2383
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Timeout <wineforum-user@winehq.org> wrote:
Quote:
I agree with you.

First the user has to install the wineprefix as user and only then the user may be able to set the security level - valid only for this wineprefix outside root.
If there is no wineprefix in /root, it will then not run that easily as root and winecfg in root should not work.
At the moment, if after "make install" I am forgetting to go outside root modus, the wineprefix is not created in /home/user but in root's own directory in /root and from there it can access anything.


Here's the current situation:
$ = user, # = root

$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ wineprefixcreate
$ sudo wine notepad # fails

$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ sudo wineprefixcreate
$ wine notepad # fails

$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ wineprefixcreate
$ wine notepad # works

# rm -rf /root/.wine
# wineprefixcreate
# wine notepad # works

$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ sudo wineprefixcreate
$ sudo wine notepad # works

$ rm -rf ~/.wine
$ wineprefixcreate
$ wine notepad # works

Notepad can be any app, obviously. This still allows for using root
access if needed, but prevents mixing the two, which IMHO will prevent
most of the problems.


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:25 am 
Offline
Level 8
Level 8

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 am
Posts: 1020
Timeout message was not here where I posted.

Sorry to say Timeout uses a completely invalid method to get access to the windows partition. Cause lack of Linux/Unix skill the one of the very reasons why I want root usage forbin out right forcing users to find the correct solution.

Vfat mount options
Quote:
uid=value and gid=value
Set the owner and group of all files. (Default: the uid and gid of the current process.)

Notice something edit fstab put your uid there on the fat drive and you can write to it freely. No reason to be in root at all. So thank you for putting you complete system at risk for no good reason Timeout. Now if you had been locked out from doing it you might have found the correct solution.

Gets even more powerful you can even override default assigned permissiins
Quote:
umask=value
Set the umask (the bitmask of the permissions that are not present). The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.
dmask=value
Set the umask applied to directories only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.
fmask=value
Set the umask applied to regular files only. The default is the umask of the current process. The value is given in octal.


Now using the masks you could even give a group full read write to the drive and give a set of users full read write access to it.

Now were was this gold mine of information "man mount"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fstab << little guide to Fstab. Note umask=000 means all users on the system have free rain to write to the file system.

Now please find something that truly needs root. Not something that is just lack of skill. There is basically no good reason I know of to be running wine as root. Network access features it needs under linux can be enabled 1 bit at a time. All filesystem accesses can be corrected threw valid means. Maybe there is a need on NON Linux platforms.


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:11 am 
Offline
Level 4
Level 4

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:45 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Austria
I am not hiding that I have no skills about Linux.

I got fed up of Windows, I jumped into the cold (Linux) water with no assistance at all and anything like sudo or fstab is over my capabilities.

My Linux-knowing environment is only stepping in so that I don't ruin Windows (which had been installed on a separate disk so that after every installation the hard disk have to be switched for booting Windows) or as safekeeper when I broke something. I get no assistance in configuration and that's probably the case of all wine newbies (I will also get no assistance in changing the configuration of the Windows partition since their aim is to protect my Windows installation). We have to learn everything by ourselves.

For sudo, I would have the root giving me the rights for it? Is somebody assisting me to do this? no.

I take what I have from the automatic setup and I use su + password or log in as root when it gets to complicated.


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:51 am 
Offline
Level 8
Level 8

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 am
Posts: 1020
sudo someone has giving you the right to step up to root when needed. After using sudo or su straight you have the full root permissions. Note sudo -u <username> or su <username> allows you to change into a different user with sudo you can use your own password if they approve your access. Note sudo requires your user listed in a particular configuration file distro can done this for you.

Man on the command is extreamly useful. man su and man sudo.

Root permissions past anything windows users are use to.

Windows Administrator has some limits on what it can do. Root on Linux is basically 100 percent rights to do everything and anything. Really a bad thing to be giving to wine or any other program without need.

With root permissions you can delete every file include files in use. There is nothing protected from harm at all. So running with root permissions is totally not recommended unless its required. Of course most system configuration requires root permissions to be able to edit.

Root Permissions is also the most dominate for resource access. So bad in fact that if you have a database service running and root is doing a lot of disk activity the database service will not be able to write to harddrive until root permissions thing is not writing to the disk. Since all root things harddrive operation take preference over every other user on the system. Windows services have more dominance than Administrator. Most powerful user called system windows users are not allowed to use.

Out-Of-Memory Process Killer called oomkiller for short of Linux killing everything bar wine first in attempt to save the system due to running out of memory. Ie Root Permission stuff is god and you don't kill a god unless you have too. Note running as a normal user it will most likely take out wine and protect the rest of system from being nuked.

Root Power is the point of absolute power on Unix and Linux systems unless security system like selinux or containers are set to contain root. By the default in most distros it is not contained.

My problem is people like you Timeout who don't understand that Root in Linux is many times more powerful than the Windows Administrator account start running wine in it. Not understanding the massive harm they are risking. So I want wine to kinda say no I am not going to run as root. So users like you stop before you break things big time. Of course a good message why it turned you down. I would not put it past having to create documentation as need to teach users the correct ways.

You will find a lot of Linux people will give free advice if we are asked timeout to prevent you doing harm to your system.

http://tldp.org/guides.html << Is one good source of free books on how to use Linux. Lots of good information there.


Top 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:35 pm 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Please use the mailing list and learn to quote, the forum is breaking threads
and without proper quoting your post is near-impossible to follow.
http://learn.to/quote

On Saturday 22 March 2008 03:51:10 am oiaohm wrote:

Quote:
Root permissions past anything windows users are use to.

This sentence no verb. Huh?

Quote:
Windows Administrator has some limits on what it can do. Root on Linux is
basically 100 percent rights to do everything and anything. Really a bad
thing to be giving to wine or any other program without need.

I'm fairly sure this is not true, Windows' Administrator and unix's root let
you do anything on the system in both caes, in a Windows environment, there
is no legitimate reason for users to have administrator privleges, just lots
of really bad reasons based on poor programming practices. One should
*never* use Windows software that requires Adminstrator privleges for
non-maintenance-related tasks for all the same reasons you shouldn't use root
in unix for non-maintence tasks.

- --
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH5Xt0UCxPKZafKh0RAqUGAKDueuxyi9SPKhP6XLoo14hyJ33LxwCg5RK2
WH1lGDtlu1CQ9Bx4+aIVtQ4=
=ip5z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Top 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:45 pm 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Please use the mailing list, not the forum, as the forum is breaking threads
and not setting up quotes correctly, making forum posts nearly unreadable.

On Friday 21 March 2008 11:15:45 pm Timeout wrote:
Quote:
One example:

"this directory is not owned by you" affecting users in 2 ways:

1. Users of distributions which file system is 90% owned by root, thus
forcing them to use root if they legitimately want to use a software
installing things in the tmp directory (in some distributions owned by
roots).

/tmp should be owned by nobody:nogroup with a mode of 777. Otherwise,
everything else you said applies to most (all?) distros out there. This is
NOT a legitimate reason to run wine as root.

- --
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH5X3mUCxPKZafKh0RAqbrAKCLpvbaq0kLFwrPqyLTDhdb4xR1DACgk6cw
tKZkcVd+PPJgz94nylA5Qe4=
=muML
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Top 
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:51 pm 
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 22 March 2008 02:11:36 am Timeout wrote:
Quote:
I am not hiding that I have no skills about Linux.

I got fed up of Windows, I jumped into the cold (Linux) water with no
assistance at all and anything like sudo or fstab is over my capabilities.

If you can use a text editor, these aren't beyond your capabilities.
Modifying /etc/fstab is a relatively mundane detail in Linux. Sudo is
well-documented and fairly easy to configure with visudo.

Quote:
My Linux-knowing environment is only stepping in so that I don't ruin
Windows (which had been installed on a separate disk so that after every
installation the hard disk have to be switched for booting Windows)

What distro are you using? Note that Debian offers to dual-boot by default so
you don't have to go swapping drives. If RPM is involved, you're in for an
unusually steep learning curve by today's Linux standards...

- --
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH5X9AUCxPKZafKh0RAgmvAJ95v0NqLV4Z9aLqjbLNa9471OXKSgCgu6I/
jEU9Ig/Kd55znktX9MnMh8Q=
=7iJ6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:54 pm 
Offline
Level 8
Level 8

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 am
Posts: 1020
Paul Johnson what I said about Windows Administator is true.

The user that matches Root on Windows is System. A user that without hacking cannot be logged in on.

As system you can delete files in USE. As Administrator you cannot.

As system you have resource access Dominance. As Administrator you will yield to system processes and services. Of course Administrator has more dominances than limited users.

Basically using root you can stuff up databases and other things if you tie up a device. Yes the hidden account that matches up to root on windows.

To make Linux have a user like Windows Admin.
1. selinux or equal to assign extra privileges to a non 0 user or remove device dominance privilege from root. Removing the delete files in use is a little hard.
2. Have some form of containers to control root user from taking dominance.

All distributions out there I know don't do either yet.

Scale of damage a run away process as root is many times worse than a run away process as Windows Administrator.

Ok So we have a forum bug. Sorry not on mailing list. Got too many lists all ready on my email account. Thinking the forum is here to stay the bug has to be fixed.

Yes I do know how to quote just I was lazy because the message was targeted at one person and I include the source to find it in the instructions "man mount".

PS Paul Johnson never under estimate my means to abuse the English Language. "Root permissions are past anything windows users are use to." Yes I was being evil using implied verb(dropping the are) to give force to statement. Also saying a sentence with double are in it suxs. It is a technically valid sentence even that no grammar checkers out there would pass it.


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 2:05 am 
Offline
Level 4
Level 4

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:45 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Austria
I am using Suse.
I am not using debian, Ubuntu was my first experience and it did not remain on my disk for more than 48 hours (hardware not supported). Now that I got to learn about the .rpm I don't want to start with .deb.

I may not be what you want to hear, but my first concern is that my software get freed from Windows.
And if this means reformatting my disk every 3 months because of my uneducated experience, i will go for it, when it's mean that I am not spending more than one hour a week on Windows.
Up to an extend, if any added check means that my software is not working anymore, I will make a regression test and remove the part. That's the best about the OpenSource feeling.
I am happy with what I have and I am not doing anything without having switched my brain first.
Many possibilities of root do not have a GUI.This is what will distinguish the starters with the more educated. Starters (or most of them) can not start with the shell as well as the Windows super user which is not clearly appearing on start. My book about Linux for beginner is not mentioning anything with fstack.

Here however first concern are viruses and not what the user can break on his computer.


Top 
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:12 am 
 
Timeout <wineforum-user@winehq.org> wrote:
Quote:
Here however first concern are viruses and not what the user can break on his computer.

Running as root makes it easier for viruses to take over your computer.
- Dan


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:28 am 
Offline
Level 4
Level 4

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:45 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Austria
Maybe

But I feel like somebody cutting my hand because thieves are using hands.
Like you said (or anybody else I don't remember who), users are using root for some reason and one has to understand *why* they are doing it.

For my purpose I removed the check and I am using the software as usual as user, but telling people having a problem with Java just to go back to 0.9.49 is not a solution either.

I remain to the fact that if no .wine directory were created as root then .wine would not have root's right from the first place because it would be installed as user. Other checks should be made non compulsory.


Top 
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:42 am 
 
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Timeout <wineforum-user@winehq.org> wrote:
Quote:
telling people having a problem with Java just to go back to 0.9.49 is not a solution either.

What Java problem are you talking about?
Bugzilla lists several, but I wasn't aware running
as root was a workaround for any of them.


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:25 am 
Offline
Level 8
Level 8

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:54 am
Posts: 1020
Thoose books are designed to be done a little in order.

http://tldp.org/LDP/sag/html/filesystems.html Yes the system administrators guide covers fstab.

Linux does have really clearly define roles. Users need to know nothing about the system. Person setting the system up to work right is a Administrator. All the guides on the tldp are written in the simplest English able some are even translated to other languages.

Linux admin first concern is normally not viruses. But things running at wrong security levels creating risks. Run all stuff were able unable to break machine and the worse you risk is losing a user and what they can write to. If you have backup of that area fixing is simple. Restore backup. Note no need to have a backup if the data is not important either as long as the rest of the system was not affected recovery is simple.

Second is a operation Host Intrusion detection system ie HIDS. HIDS don't need updated signatures to find viruses. It working the other way. These files are known good is there anything here I don't know method.
Far more effective than any Anti-Virus could be. All unknowns are detectable. This is also backed up with a rootkit hunter of some form like http://rkhunter.sourceforge.net/ to make sure the HIDS is not being fooled into thinking stuff is not altered when it has been.

Third Backup system.

Forth applications users are running and there risks. This includes wine contained to a single user. clamav with real-time scanning addon can come into play. Or a user that if you lose you don't care since it has no important access.

Linux Admin concern list is different. If you do the first two takes out a lot of problems. True Linux viruses are very rare. More likely to get rootkited by a Linux rootkit and used in a bot net than a Linux virus.

It is nothing special for a Linux system to upgraded and upgraded and never reinstalled for the complete hardware life of the machine. Something windows users normally never see. Most common reason to reinstall is trying other distros. Next rootkit infection/Security breach. Then bad distro upgrade. Finally Administrator error.

Please note wine is quality status Beta so you don't call that beginner software either. So some more administrative skills are required to use it right. On top of that. Installation of software and setting of global permissions is normally the sole domain of root/Administrator on Linux. So using wine to its full does require some administrative skill to alter permissions to allow exactly what you want. If you were happy using external media or stuff like that for the transfer you would not need to know how to alter a fat partition in fstab to make it mount read write to users you want to access it. Pushing envelope is forcing you to need more skills sooner Timeout.

Ask in a suse channels(forum/irc locations) if yast has a graphical fstab editor. Most distros have there own custom forms of it. The /etc/fstab file is the same on all distros so long term people like me just learn to edit that.

Please get you order of worries around the correct way Timeout. Windows order of worry is just wrong for Linux Unix Mac... Basically everything bar Windows.

Ps Wine is Beta software things like Java not working in every version has to be expected. Now if wine was Officially stable for using Java and it did not work then you would have a beef.


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:28 am 
Offline
Level 4
Level 4

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:45 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Austria
There is a setup error introduced by a change in 0.9.49.
I made a regression test and I noticed that the difference between the setup error and the installation continuing (with patch reverted) was java classes installed in z:/tmp.

Otherwise there is no need for me to change anything or even to update it. As it is the software can be used if you accept some bugs and issue.

I don't see the need to change my configuration now or even upgrade to 0.9.58


Top 
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:34 am 
 
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Timeout <wineforum-user@winehq.org> wrote:
Quote:
There is a setup error introduced by a change in 0.9.49.
I made a regression test and I noticed that the difference between the setup error and the installation continuing (with patch reverted) was java classes installed in z:/tmp.

Which patch introduced the problem?

Is there a bug filed for this yet?


Top 
 Post subject:
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:14 am 
Offline
Level 4
Level 4

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:45 pm
Posts: 183
Location: Austria
Dear Dan,

I removed the bug for it. It was 10584 but in the description of the bug it was not clear to me at the beginning what caused it. Afterwards, I started to remove the last lines of the patch on my own GIT and went on with the next setup problem.


Top 
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:00 am 
 
Timeout wrote:
Quote:
Dear Dan,

I removed the bug for it. It was 10584 but in the description of the bug it was not clear to me at the beginning what caused it. Afterwards, I started to remove the last lines of the patch on my own GIT and went on with the next setup problem.




Timeout:

Please, please, please file a bug for this. If you know the code that
caused the error, please put it in an attachment to the issue.

Thank you.

James McKenzie

Quote:


Top 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
 Page 1 of 3 [ 62 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next




Board index » WineHQ » Wine Help


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: