Linux, win98 cli, SetiQ, and W.I.N.E.??

[artemedes]

Okay guys just have a couple of questions. I've been wanting to run linux again, and was thinking of downloading the latest version of mandrake since that is what i have had the best luck with in the past. But I have never messed with WINE. I have heard that you get the best performance running win98cli of seti under WINE in linux. But there is an more important reason to run WINE. The box I want to switch over to Mandrake is my file server and SetiQueue server. I really want to keep this as the SetiQueue server cause the computer isn't used much, is reliable as any computer I have ever used, and thats the way it is set up now running win98se. I would put win2k on it if I had it, but don't think it is worth it if I can get mandrake to do everything I need.


If you didn't read all of that my real simple question is: Can linux run Setiqueue under WINE and give me rock solid stability? I havn't had any problems runnign setiq under win98.

Thanks.

 

[nexus9]

I have no data to back this up, but I can't believe seti under wine would be faster that the native linux seti...

-Nexus9

 

[BurntKooshie]

nexus....it is, by a good half hour. The winnt CLI under linux, using WINE, is faster, due to heavier optimizations for the winnt client.

 

[artemedes]

Thanks BK, I had heard it mentioned but didn't realize it was that much of an improvement.


Is Anyone running SetiQueue under WINE? That is really what I am concerned with. The switchover to linux will mean I have to stop running the Q on this machine if it doesn't run well. That may just be enough reason to stick with win98se. By the way it is just a little k6-3 450 box, so I am not really concerned about time on it, cause it is already doing work unites in the 18-19 hr range. Having said that I do hope to upgrade it end of summer.


One more question? Can WINE be run from the command prompt? To maximize performance I was wanting to save resources by doing everything text. Remembe this box just sits there now. So once i set it up it would need minimal service (I hope).

 

[Poof]

artemedes - I've never tried it, but since a bunch of people have been asking about it, I am now booted into 98SE on my dual boot RH 6.2 machine (the one that has WINE installed) and I'm going to give it a shot.

I'm going to first try installing it on the 98SE, then I'll boot back to linux and see if WINE will start it. The thing is about the new Setiqueue is that it is graphical and web-based for the most part, so I don't know how well that will run in WINE.

Also, I've never been able to successfully run 2 WINE processes at the same time, although there might be a parameter I'm missing that would let me do that... I'll see.

Will let you know if the version of WINE that I have will do this or not (I might even need a newer version, but since it runs my SETI CLI pretty decently, I figured I'd leave well enough alone and not bother to upgrade! ).

 

[artemedes]

Wow, thanks Poof!

Look foreward to hearing about your findings. It actually currently runs wonderful right now. I just miss having a linux computer around is all.

Thanks.

 

[Poof]

ACK!!! You got me all involved in this!!!!!!!! :Q



After alot of putzing and dealing with the fact that I don't feel like upgrading the libraries on my RH 6.2 from gnulibc 2.1 to 2.2, I did finally get over to Codeweaver's to grab a newer WINE for my Red Hat 6.2. I grabbed the one there compiled as codeweavers-wine-20010305.rpm, and at 12MB, it's pretty HUGE.

After alot of putzing (meaning that I was seeing issues with some things needing to be run as root), I got seti to run but still can't get the new Setiqueue to go. I'm getting an error message about running "startservices" or something... I know in windoze, Setiqueue sortof starts up with that graphic of a star map and then runs in the background, sticking an icon in the taskbar, so it could be that there's issues with that.

I haven't tried running the old 0.78 Setiqueue in WINE (need to get the files for it over to this machine), but since that is text-based, it might have a better chance of it running.

Hell, I even now have Windows Media Player running in WINE (had never gotten chance to try it with my older WINE)... :Q :disgust:



The one good thing here is that I can now run multiple windoze apps with it...

The 98SE partition that it's pulling off of is sortof minimal with regards to what programs are installed on it so it would be interesting to see how much more can run.

 

[artemedes]

Your efforts are much apreciated. Really!

I thought about the old text setiQ, and I am sure you are right that it would work great, only problem is that this particular SetiQueue needs to support 2 users.

Congratulations on your success with multiple instances. I find it amusing that you are running WMP in linux. Cool too.

 

[Poof]

I find it amusing that you are running WMP in linux. Cool too.

:Q

I just tried running that as a test since I couldn't find the damn sol.exe...

But... I have nothing that will play .avi files (who would want to??? ), not even my Linux Realplayer. So having that ability to do so for sites that refuse to support Realplayer format is good in a way. I guess the epitome will be Quicktime stuff too since I have nothing in Linux that will run .mov files. I have plenty of stuff that does support mp3s and mpegs, etc., pretty decently.

Also I did find that I could run Folding@Home in this version of WINE too... but the key will be whether it will correctly connect/upload/download from Stanford (as I recall my older version wouldn't).

 

[Poof]

Oh... and you did ask about running WINE from a terminal/commandline.

That's how I've always run it - but always while in X and my KDE. There is a bizarre way to run WINE without having to start X (by defining the graphical screen sizes, etc., and then I think shunting what would be the display to /dev/null or something... I'm not sure, but I did see some comments last year from someone doing it).

With this CodeWeaver's version, the option to have WINE run automatically when you click on a windoze program from a linux file Manager is another way to do it... But what I found was that by doing that, I think the process started up in the background and I couldn't see what it was doing. I guess if someone was trying to "hide" it from the window manager, this is good. But I always like to have the text screen available to look at just in case the program, like SETI or folding, crashes, and I can take steps to fix it.