Guys I ned help installing and running SL on Linux, please.

[iamtheainar]

Well, first of all sorry if this is wrong forum category. I was searching for service center or techical support, or something like that but could not find it...

 

Anyways, so I got my new PC just yesterday and it runs on Linux Mint 13 Maya. I have heard that SL can run on Linux, right?  But when I download it, well...  first of all, I have no idea how to install it. I am a very big computer noob and I have pretty much no idea how to do anything in Linux...

I have to write some kind of commands in Terminal and instal it manually and I have no idea how to! Can somebody help me please with info or give me a link to s detailed step by step instructions how to install and get in game? =/

Edit: Problem sloved - How to run Second Life on Linux Mint 13 Maya

[Dilbert Dilweg]

Maybe this link from the wiki May help

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linux_Viewer#Installing_and_Running

 

I do not use Linux but i hope the page can shed some light for ya

And help learning to use Linux terminal you have a long road ahead of you learning linux

[Storm Clarence]

---

iamtheainar wrote:

... I am a very big computer noob and I have pretty much no idea how to do anything in Linux...

I have to write some kind of commands in Terminal and instal it manually and I have no idea how to! Can somebody help me please with info or give me a link to s detailed step by step instructions how to install and get in game? =/

---

 

You MUST learn Linux first.  Learn the tools that come with Linux.  Even if you get lucky enough to have someone help you get SL installed you will STILL need to learn the Linux tools.  If you do not learn the tools you are leaving yourself open to many, many days of a nightmarish hell by selecting an environment you know absolutely nothing about. 

To this end, your question is not fair to either yourself or others.  

Good luck.

[Qie Niangao]

I don't know Mint at all, but I understand it to be a very close relative of Ubuntu, so probably you already have some kind of window manager running, and a desktop, and all that.  Somewhere you'll discover a file browser--kind of like the Mac's "Finder" or Windows' "Explorer"--with which you can navigate the file system. You'll need to find whither you downloaded the SL tarball, decide where you want to put it, extract it where you want it to live ("extract here" is probably on the right-click menu in the file browser), find in the resulting folder the shell script called simply "secondlife" and run it (again probably a right-click option).

That's the simplest, least intrusive way to start. Eventually, you may want to actually "install" it (the "install.sh" file might be all you need, but you may also want to add it to whatever desktop you're running--but that's a more advanced and specialized operation.

Also, a heads-up:  if Mint is as much like Ubuntu as I've been lead to believe, you might encounter a very nasty bug that plagues SL on the current Ubuntu release.

[Masami Kuramoto]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

That's the simplest, least intrusive way to start. Eventually, you may want to actually "install" it (the "install.sh" file might be all you need, but you may also want to add it to whatever desktop you're running--but that's a more advanced and specialized operation.

---

The viewer's auto-update feature requires the install location to be user-writable. In general, I would recommend against "installing" anything that doesn't ship as a .deb archive. I've had SL in my home folder for more than five years; it really is the ideal install location for now, IMO.

By the way, the viewer will also automatically add a launcher to the GNOME applications menu and the Unity dashboard. Not sure if that will show up in KDE as well, but GNOME is the default in Mint if I remember correctly.

Some special preparations are needed if the computer is a laptop with Nvidia Optimus hybrid graphics. I'll write more about that if anyone is interested.

[Jenni Darkwatch]

Okay... running SL (or just about anything) on Linux is not exactly trivial. Linux isn't friendly to newbies, it eats newbies for breakfast.

The previous posters have already mentioned: You may want to learn the linux terminal console, it's not really optional. For SL you do not need it though.

I presume you downloaded the Linux client already. Double-click on the downloaded client file and you can extract the contents of the archive - preferably into your home directory. You may also be able to right-click on the archive and select "extract".

If you got that far, all you need to do is navigate to the newly created directory and find an entry that says "secondlife". Double-click on it and it'll launch SL.

Caveats:
- You NEED to use the proprietary binary graphics card drivers if you use an ATI or NVIDIA graphics card. No idea if Mint installs them by default.
- Out o the box, you probably will not have the ability to listen to music in SL or watch videos. For that, you'll need to install some additional packages.

Disclaimer: I do not use Mint myself, thus the steps are very generic. Mint may or may not have some of the required libraries pre-installed. If it does not, you might be in for a rough ride to get SL running. Ideally, let a friend who knows a bit about Linux (and Mint in particular) install it for you.

[Masami Kuramoto]

Mint should have all the necessary libraries for audio and video playback pre-installed, since that is exactly why Mint was created in the first place. The only package that may be missing in a default install is "ia32-libs" for running 32-bit apps, and installing that is anything but rocket science.

In fact Mint and its parent Ubuntu have become so noob-friendly, it's almost embarrassing. I'm at risk of losing my geek card.

[Arkady Arkright]

---

Masami Kuramoto wrote:In fact Mint and its parent Ubuntu have become so noob-friendly, it's almost embarrassing. I'm at risk of losing my geek card.

---

I have to agree with this - I have Ubuntu 10.04 running several different viewers on several different grids - and each was a simple case of :-

• Click on a web-page to download a file to my home directory,
• Click on the downloaded file to create and populate the required viewer directory structure,
• Right-click on the main script in the newly-created directory to construct a desktop shortcut,
• Then click on the shortcut to run the viewer.

 

I suspect some of the comments here about the complexities of Linux may be from people who haven't actually tried it for a while...

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Arkady Arkright wrote:

---

Masami Kuramoto wrote:In fact Mint and its parent Ubuntu have become so noob-friendly, it's almost embarrassing. I'm at risk of losing my geek card.

---

I have to agree with this - I have Ubuntu 10.04 running several different viewers on several different grids - and each was a simple case of :-

• Click on a web-page to download a file to my home directory,
• Click on the downloaded file to create and populate the required viewer directory structure,
• Right-click on the main script in the newly-created directory to construct a desktop shortcut,
• Then click on the shortcut to run the viewer.

 

I suspect some of the comments here about the complexities of Linux may be from people who haven't actually tried it for a while...

 

---

If it was as simple as that (which it just very well may be) then why the OP?   It's not so much that it is easy to install a SL viewer, it is using an OS and not being able to understand its complexities, nuances, coupled with the inability to administer the system (a very much needed skillset when using Linux) will lead to more and more issues in the days, weeks, and months ahead.   

Almost every application comes with a README -- for a reason!  If you can't/don't read the README and/or understand the README then what next?  

If the OP can not install SL then how is he expected to install the 32bit libs?  Or install the correct drivers? Just tweaking the OS to get all the working parts working is not so easy for a computer n00b.

I say RTFM... and once you have done so, then formulate your questions accordingly, and more specifically.   

[Arkady Arkright]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

:If it was as simple as that (which it just very well may be) then why the OP?  

---

Maybe he just needed a pointer on how to get started.  I don't understand your stance on this issue, what version of Linux are you currently running ?

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Arkady Arkright wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

:If it was as simple as that (which it just very well may be) then why the OP?  

---

Maybe he just needed a pointer on how to get started. 

I don't understand your stance on this issue

, what version of Linux are you currently running ?

 

---

My stance on this is based on the OP:

1) OP states "I was searching for tech support or something like that and could not find..."  There are 10's of 1000's of sites that offer Linux help on the Interwebs.  One of the most important skills needed in a *nix environment is how to install software on your machine.   It is much more than just a point and click.  It is about permissions, drivers, libraries, package management, builds, paths, network issues, security, to name just a few.   The OP got his computer yesterday, I think he should learn about his computer OS before he learns to install, build, and run SL.   I absolutely disagree with "Oh screw it, I will just ask people and save the time by not RTFM.  

2) There is a *right* way to do things in Unix/Linux and there is the quick and easy way.  I have seen too many times (actually every time)  the quick and easy way leading to nightmares within the environment e.g., someone above mentioned to place the package in your home directory -- this is something I would never do; the Linux FS is designed and implemented the way it is for a reason; and the reasons are way outside the scope of this conversation. 

3) OP states "I am a very big computer noob and I have pretty much no idea how to do anything in Linux... I have to write some kind of commands in Terminal and install it manually and I have no idea how to"  If it was as easy as pointing and clicking why the heck does he have a shell open?  Don't you think one should have at least a basic understanding of the power of the shell?  I do.

 

I am not attempting to beat up the OP, I am attempting to teach them the 'right' way to learn their environment.  If they choose to not listen, so be it... I have nothing more to teach.  Like I stated in my first post, the OP is not being fair to either him or the people that want to answer his question(s.)   We would all be fools (including the OP) to think that the question he asked is as straight forward as it reads, and that it will be the last.     

 

[Arkady Arkright]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

{stuff}

---

I've been running Ubuntu Linux for five years. It used to be a bit tricky in the way you describe, but that's no longer the case. The procedure I specified to install viewers works, time and time again.

 

As for your "right way to run Linux" - so what ?  we're not talking about a commercial implementation with hundreds of users here (a task in which I have some experience, btw), but a single individual home user wanting to run  a particular piece of software for his own pleasure. It's perfectly all right to install trusted applications programs in your user's home directory - it's actually the recommended location for a number of viewers, specified in the developers own installation instructions.

 

I find your "go away and learn to speak French properly before you try and say 'bonjour' to me" attitude utterly arrogant and appalling - you can learn by asking (and by trying things), without some uptight pedant dropping on you from a great height for daring to talk about something new to you. I take it you undergo a thorough and comprehensive mandatory re-training before touching keyboard or mouse whenever a new version of Windows appears ?

 

I ask again - what version of Linux are you currently running ?

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Arkady Arkright wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

{stuff}

---

 

As for your "right way to run Linux" - so what ?  we're not talking about a commercial implementation with hundreds of users here (a task in which I have some experience, btw), but a single individual home user wanting to run  a particular piece of software for his own pleasure. It's perfectly all right to install trusted applications programs in your user's home directory -

it's actually the recommended location for a number of viewers,

specified in the developers own installation instructions.

  

I ask again - what version of Linux are you currently running ?

 

---

If the software comes with developers installation instructions then don't you think that is the 1st thing the OP should have read?  I do.  Then the OP is in a better position to ask questions.  This is what I wrote in my 2nd post above.  

The rest of what you wrote is garbage; typical n00b talk; if no one is going to teach me then how am I to learn type talk.  I enjoy nothing more than to help, offer guidance, and work within an environment in which I am brutally comfortable, and have embraced since its inception.        

Yes, I am a pedant when it comes to installing, configuring, tweaking, and using/developing operating systems and writing software.  There is a right way and a wrong way.  It is called computer sciences for a reason.  YMMV.   

ETA: kernel 3.3.7 is the version I have installed.  

[Storm Clarence]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Arkady Arkright wrote:

I ask again -

what desktop and window manager versions

 

Linux

are you currently running ?

 

---

   ETA: kernel 3.3.7 is the version I have installed.  

---

 

So, I have answered your question, but you twice now asked the wrong question.  The question, as it relates to the OP, I FIFY above as what version of Linux really has nothing to do with anything in the conversation, does it?  Rhetorical.  

[Arkady Arkright]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:The rest of what you wrote is garbage; typical n00b talk;

---

You're right, I'm so much of a n00b - only 40 years experience in commercial software development and network and operating system support, providing and implementing world-wide systems, some of the very first truly national networks in the UK, and developing packages in a wide variety of languages and applications areas - and, incidentally, using PC's to do real commercial tasks, under a wide variety of operating systems, since the late 80's.

Are you an academic by any chance ?

---

I enjoy nothing more than to help, offer guidance, and work within an environment in which I am brutally comfortable, and have embraced since its inception.

---

And the best you can manage is "don't even try because you haven't got my vast breadth and depth of experience and learning" ? If that's help, I'll go for hindrance...

---

Yes, I am a pedant when it comes to installing, configuring, tweaking, and using/developing operating systems and writing software.  There is a right way and a wrong way.  It is called computer sciences for a reason.  YMMV.   

---

Computer Science is for computer scientists, who have a real need to know that level of detail. For real people, who just want to perform a particular task, there is the expedient way of using a pre-configured operating system and a pre-configured program to perform the task in hand. Do you require that we learn the in-and-outs of the modern IC engine before we should be even permitted to ask how to drive a car ? Perhaps we should all have chemistry degrees before we ask the pharmacist what might be good to treat an irritating twinge ? Perhaps I shouldn't switch on my TV without first having a degree in electronics, and heaven forfend that I should try to attach a DVD player to it... Frankly, people like you do computing a great disservice by frightening off people like the OP, simply to maintain your 'forum cred' by pretending things are more difficult than they actually are.

---

ETA: kernel 3.3.7 is the version I have installed.

---

Thought so, pure nerd response - maybe if you actually tried something like a modern Ubuntu or Mint release you'd be able to speak from experience rather than outdated theory.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Arkady Arkright wrote:

---

ETA: kernel 3.3.7 is the version I have installed.

---

Thought so, pure nerd response - maybe if you actually tried something like a modern Ubuntu or Mint release you'd be able to speak from experience rather than outdated theory.

---

/smiles  yes, I have/do hack Ubuntu on some of my personal machines, but what's in a name -- pick your flavor!   It gets no more modern than 3.3.7 regardless of flavor du jour (see what I did there with my French.)  

ETA: All my responses in this thread are formed from a prescience based of a deep understanding of 'my' environment; translation: experience.   

You wrote that I am a pedant, then a nerd, but I will take offense if you call me a drunk  

[Masami Kuramoto]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

2) There is a *right* way to do things in Unix/Linux and there is the quick and easy way.  I have seen too many times (actually every time)  the quick and easy way leading to nightmares within the environment e.g., someone above mentioned to place the package in your home directory -- this is something I would never do; the Linux FS is designed and implemented the way it is for a reason; and the reasons are way outside the scope of this conversation. 

---

Placing the package in the home directory was my suggestion, and I explained why. In fact your "right way" is what causes trouble for most people.

You have to understand that the SL viewer is not your typical Linux application. It was developed with Windows in mind. If it were a proper Linux application, it would

 

• ship as multiarch .deb archives in a regular APT repository,
• use APT as an updater instead of implementing its own one that requires install folder write access at runtime (!),
• not modify LD_LIBRARY_PATH in its startup script,
• not overwrite its own desktop shortcut upon every launch, etc.

Shoehorning such an application into a system that is maintained by a package manager is much worse than using the home folder as an install location. If you ever installed real Windows applications under WINE, you would know that they all end up in a hidden folder in the user's home directory as well. WINE is totally breaking the rules there, and for good reason.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Masami Kuramoto wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

2) There is a *right* way to do things in Unix/Linux and there is the quick and easy way.  I have seen too many times (actually every time)  the quick and easy way leading to nightmares within the environment e.g., someone above mentioned to place the package in your home directory -- this is something I would never do; the Linux FS is designed and implemented the way it is for a reason; and the reasons are way outside the scope of this conversation. 

---

Placing the package in the home directory was my suggestion, and I explained why. In fact your "right way" is what causes trouble for most people.

You have to understand that the

SL viewer is not your typical Linux application

. It was developed with Windows in mind. If it were a proper Linux application, it would

 

• ship as multiarch .deb archives in a regular APT repository,
• use APT as an updater instead of implementing its own one that requires
  install folder write access at runtime (!),
• not modify LD_LIBRARY_PATH in its startup script,
• not overwrite its own desktop shortcut upon every launch, etc.

Shoehorning such an application into a system that is maintained by a package manager is much worse than using the home folder as an install location. If you ever installed real Windows applications under WINE, you would know that they all end up in a hidden folder in the user's home directory as well. WINE is totally breaking the rules there, and for good reason.

---

I would not and do not install ANY software in my home directory especially just to avoid adding a PATH to the libs.  Great if you do.  How much of what you wrote do you think the OP understands?  I used your example only as an example of what I would not do, however, please feel free to explain to OP what hidden files are and how can he can access the files (just in case his next question is about reading his chat logs.)  

You mention WINE... cool, but maybe, if the OP has proficiencies using Microsoft, the OP should partition his disk and install Windows (before installing SL.)  Let him operate SL in WIndows until he is able to install and configure in both environments.  And, it would be a good learning experience for the OP in installing software.  Or were you just mentioning WINE as an example?  

It is not me that is making this complex by advising the OP to get some basic skills with the OS before he seeks to install third party software that by you own words is "not your typical Linux application," it is you guys!    As Ark stated, easy as one two three.  

ETA:

/wonders if the OP understood that his flavor of Linux will require the 32bit libs (ya know the stuff that is not rocket science to install - I think that was your words above.)  Does one install the dependancies of the "not your typical Linux application" in the home directory?  Does one use a package manager to install core OS libraries?  What's a package manager?  How do I use my package manager?  I have no skills!

 

[Jenni Darkwatch]

Minor correction: SL doesn't need any manually set library paths. On the other hand, installing the SL client system-wide is stupid because it breaks auto-updating (or used to anyway). For the SL client, the home directory is the easier way to go, especially since the client doesn't follow *nix directory conventions anyway.

Other than that I find the debate pointless. Is the goal to help the OP install SL or is it to e-peen?

If Mint has the necessary libraries by default, could someone familiar with Mint then please write a step-by-step noob instruction for it? I've never used Mint. Ubuntu I could, though it'd be a much instruction set than just "1-2-3".

[Arkady Arkright]

---

Storm Clarence patronised: /smiles yes, I have/do hack Ubuntu on some of my personal machines, but what's in a name -- pick your flavor! ;It gets no more modern than 3.3.7 regardless of flavor du jour (see what I did there with my French.)

---

Doubtless deep under Windows there's a "DOS x.y", but you don't need to be familiar with it to run IE...

 

---

ETA: All my responses in this thread are formed from a prescience based of a deep understanding of 'my' environment; translation: experience.

---

As are mine (see above) - perhaps you should add something from the 21st century to your 'experience', just to see what's possible in this wonderful age we inhabit ?

 

---

You wrote that I am a pedant, then a nerd, but I will take offense if you call me a drunk

---

I think the pedantry and nerdishness are self -evident,. but I would never criticise drunkeness,,,:matte-motes-dead:

[Arkady Arkright]

---

Masami Kuramoto wrote:

{Stuff about Wine}

---

Wine doesn't come into it, there are native Linux viewer builds available.

[Arkady Arkright]

---

Jenni Darkwatch wrote:

Ubuntu I could, though it'd be a much instruction set than just "1-2-3".

---

Have you tried it recently Jenni ? It really is that simple, even with an Nvidia card.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Arkady Arkright wrote:

---

Masami Kuramoto wrote:

{Stuff about Wine}

---

Wine doesn't come into it, there are native Linux viewer builds available.

---

I don't think Masami meant to implement SLViewer using wine.  If I am not mistaken he was using Wine as an example of where wine writes its config, etc., i.e., the home directory.  

[Storm Clarence]

---

Arkady Arkright wrote:

I think the pedantry and nerdishness are self -evident,. but I would

never

criticise drunkeness,,,:matte-motes-dead:

---

That's the spirit!

 

[Storm Clarence]

---

Jenni Darkwatch wrote:

Minor correction: SL doesn't need any manually set library paths. On the other hand, installing the SL client system-wide is stupid because it breaks auto-updating (or used to anyway).

For the SL client, the home directory is the easier way to go,

especially since the client doesn't follow *nix directory conventions anyway.

 

---

I understand this ^^.  The conversation is not about the directory to install SL in, it is about how to install SL.

PS I don't take the easy way to go when I install software, I take the right way to go.  The right way according to my methodology, but, again, that is beside the point and outside the scope of this conversation.