74 On occasion, the Linux versions of programs can be really difficult to install. I found that it was easier to run the Windows version of Dwarf Fortress through Wine than to mess with the Linux version.
Good vs. Evil
- Thread starter Randomguy404
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
75
I tried it and it was easy.
Just download->unpack->install the correct 32 bit dependencies (which are listed on the site and for me I just had to use one command. If you are running a 32 bit machine you will probably already have them)
That is the lazy way to install it, thus you won't be able to run it by just simply typing "dwarf_fortress" or whatever in a terminal but making you able to do that can be done in different ways depending on what you like
That being said, I did not try to play it or anything. Just started it and it seemed to run fine.
Hard to install?
I tried it and it was easy.
Just download->unpack->install the correct 32 bit dependencies (which are listed on the site and for me I just had to use one command. If you are running a 32 bit machine you will probably already have them)
That is the lazy way to install it, thus you won't be able to run it by just simply typing "dwarf_fortress" or whatever in a terminal but making you able to do that can be done in different ways depending on what you like
That being said, I did not try to play it or anything. Just started it and it seemed to run fine.
76 I saw that the Linux version wanted me to manually download and install some dependencies, and I balked, and so I tried the Windows version in Wine (which I'd already installed), and it worked.
*shrug*
I had (and still have) no idea how to make third-party programs show up in Ubuntu's take on the Windows start menu, so I always just navigated to the folder where it was installed and double-clicked the executable. Worked well enough for me; I ran most games that way back then.
Now that I'm running OSX, I have figured out how to create an actual application that shows up in Launchpad and literally just runs a shell script. Much nicer. That's actually how I run the Mac version of DF right now. I also have it set up to launch Soundsense at the same time, which is nice because without it, Adventure Mode is way too silent.
*shrug*
I had (and still have) no idea how to make third-party programs show up in Ubuntu's take on the Windows start menu, so I always just navigated to the folder where it was installed and double-clicked the executable. Worked well enough for me; I ran most games that way back then.
Now that I'm running OSX, I have figured out how to create an actual application that shows up in Launchpad and literally just runs a shell script. Much nicer. That's actually how I run the Mac version of DF right now. I also have it set up to launch Soundsense at the same time, which is nice because without it, Adventure Mode is way too silent.
77 well, getting it to run from a menu can be, interesting in Linux depending on what you use.
Currently for me I should be able to make a nice .desktop file inside ~/Desktop and I should be able to run it that way. Though I am lazy and currently only have multiMC setup that way >_<
Using mate there should be a menu you can open somewhere that you should be able to use to place it in the menu. Haven't messed with that much though as I don't like mate anymore. (Awesome is just way too awesome. Though I still use a good amount of programs that are part of mate, like its terminal its sound control and file manager.)
I think the same is true for gnome (might even be the same menu/program), though I am not sure due to the fact that I have a strong dislike towards Gnome 3.
Currently for me I should be able to make a nice .desktop file inside ~/Desktop and I should be able to run it that way. Though I am lazy and currently only have multiMC setup that way >_<
Using mate there should be a menu you can open somewhere that you should be able to use to place it in the menu. Haven't messed with that much though as I don't like mate anymore. (Awesome is just way too awesome. Though I still use a good amount of programs that are part of mate, like its terminal its sound control and file manager.)
I think the same is true for gnome (might even be the same menu/program), though I am not sure due to the fact that I have a strong dislike towards Gnome 3.
80 perhaps, also about the need for dependencies, well that is just how Linux works.
Unlike Windows most libraries are shared as a result it isn't that uncommon to need and install extra dependencies. However unlike Windows, Linux also has some very nice package managers which take care off it for you.
Unlike Windows most libraries are shared as a result it isn't that uncommon to need and install extra dependencies. However unlike Windows, Linux also has some very nice package managers which take care off it for you.
82 Yeah, I know... and when the program I want to use exists on a repository that apt-get or Homebrew know about, it's (usually) fairly simple to install (*cough*Octave*cough*)... or, when an OSX program is distributed in the form of a neatly packaged .dmg file that I just need to click on and drag the application into my Applications directory... but when a developer throws a .tar.gz at me and when I extract it and try to run the binary within, it complains that it needs libsqrt2.0 or something... I just panic and don't know what to do.
Sourcecode is worse. I have never managed to successfully compile a program that didn't already have a compiled OSX version and was not in Homebrew's repository. But Homebrew locally compiles lots of things with no trouble at all, which annoys me.
Sourcecode is worse. I have never managed to successfully compile a program that didn't already have a compiled OSX version and was not in Homebrew's repository. But Homebrew locally compiles lots of things with no trouble at all, which annoys me.
86 All I can say is, I have tried to install a number of programs from source without the help of Homebrew, and (with the sole exceptions of Terasology and a number of Minecraft dev environments) have yet to get any of them to work. Maybe I'm just a noob, or maybe OSX just really doesn't like those peoples' code.
89 My current OS like list
GNU/Hurd->GNU/Linux->OSX->Windows
My current order of what I will probably use
Linux->Windows->OSX->GNU/Hurd
(The fact that OSX is if I remember correctly unix based sets it on top of windows in terms of me liking it. However I will probably never use it. Same is sadly enough true for GNU/Hurd, I really like the internal design and would love to use it as a result. I will probably never use it though.)
GNU/Hurd->GNU/Linux->OSX->Windows
My current order of what I will probably use
Linux->Windows->OSX->GNU/Hurd
(The fact that OSX is if I remember correctly unix based sets it on top of windows in terms of me liking it. However I will probably never use it. Same is sadly enough true for GNU/Hurd, I really like the internal design and would love to use it as a result. I will probably never use it though.)
93
OSX is indeed based on BSD UNIX (as evidenced by all the man pages saying "BSD" at the top and bottom), while Linux and Android are based on AT&T UNIX. They're distant cousins. Windows and the Hurd, on the other hand, are both entirely their own things.