The Linux Thread - The Autist's OS of Choice

Got a WINE dilemma

Trying to play a windows game made in 2022 that has a low system requirement (Win7 512MB Ram). Unfortunately it won't work, and when I try to find out why via terminal, this is the error it gives out:
Code:
winegstreamer error: decodebin87: Your GStreamer installation is missing a plug-in.
winegstreamer error: decodebin87: ../gst/playback/gstdecodebin2.c(4719): gst_decode_bin_expose (): /GstBin:bin87/GstDecodeBin:decodebin87:
no suitable plugins found:
Missing decoder: Quicktime (video/quicktime, variant=(string)iso)
First of all, LOL at the fact that there are games that still need Quicktime but whatever.

Second, I did a quick Google search, and I have all the libraries install that the links claim I need:
  • GStreamer Bad
  • GStreamer Base (only one that has an i386 version)
  • GStreamer Good
  • GStreamer Ugly
I even installed Quicktime on WINE just for the hell of it and that didn't work. So I have no idea what else I could possibly be missing.
 
Got a WINE dilemma

Trying to play a windows game made in 2022 that has a low system requirement (Win7 512MB Ram). Unfortunately it won't work, and when I try to find out why via terminal, this is the error it gives out:
Code:
winegstreamer error: decodebin87: Your GStreamer installation is missing a plug-in.
winegstreamer error: decodebin87: ../gst/playback/gstdecodebin2.c(4719): gst_decode_bin_expose (): /GstBin:bin87/GstDecodeBin:decodebin87:
no suitable plugins found:
Missing decoder: Quicktime (video/quicktime, variant=(string)iso)
First of all, LOL at the fact that there are games that still need Quicktime but whatever.

Second, I did a quick Google search, and I have all the libraries install that the links claim I need:
  • GStreamer Bad
  • GStreamer Base (only one that has an i386 version)
  • GStreamer Good
  • GStreamer Ugly
I even installed Quicktime on WINE just for the hell of it and that didn't work. So I have no idea what else I could possibly be missing.
Search AI says you need qtmux which is part of gst-plugins-good. It's also used to play video codecs like MPEG-4, H.264, H.265, VP8, VP9, etc
 
Search AI says you need qtmux which is part of gst-plugins-good. It's also used to play video codecs like MPEG-4, H.264, H.265, VP8, VP9, etc
You can also just convert the videos to a working codec with ffmpeg like H264. Works great for visual novels that require old ones like mpeg.
 
I don't know what happens if the game is expecting a .mov for a cutscene and you give it a .mkv but it's likely nothing good.
You could like convert it to a different codec, but change the name to *.mov, In my experience, just changing the extension works. But, I'm not sure if that works for everything. I tested it for White Album 2.
 
But now I'm checking stuff around and weirdly Arch is one of the systems that get most support of? More documentation and more compatible software, weirdly enough? I'm extremely confused. I'm completely clueless as I've always observed this from the outside so I know nothing other than Ubuntu = most used, Kubuntu its Ubuntu but KDE DE for Windows users, Mint being recommended for being performant and fast (compared to what??) And some other stupid shit.
Arch attracts a lot of people who are really interested in Linux in the same way that Mint or Ubuntu attract people who want something that just works. So Arch users are annoying because they constantly talk about how they use Arch and how they set up their system because they're really interested in using and setting up Linux. However, that also leads to a lot of problems being encountered and documented, and people figuring out how to make things work for Arch.

Do people say Mint is fast? It's faster than Windows if you're using like XFCE or MATE for sure, but it should be pretty similar to a well setup Ubuntu install right?
 
I think the arch-beginner-friendliness issue stems from the fact that the wiki is pretty good, so if you are willing to put a bit of work in and read the wiki, you will have a great beginner experience (I couldn't really get into linux until I tried arch). But if you expect to just do a few clicks and have a working system then you will have a terrible experience.
 
The gentoo wiki is also good, or at least used to be. I feel arch is pretty much the same than any other binary based distro. With gentoo you gain more of a feel what is dependant on what, how software can be configured in several ways, how you can configure the kernel, how it makes sense to sometimes apply your own patches to software, and how a lot of the configuration of system services works. I don't get a feel that's a big part of the arch experience.

Naturally you'll have to learn, if you want to you can learn anywhere, if you don't, you'll learn nothing, no matter the distro.

I spent time on learning about apkbuilds and personally, after a short time back on Gentoo, I went back to Alpine. I like the simplicity and being able to stick with a stable release that doesn't change much. Rolling releases nowadays are just too much.
 
The gentoo wiki is also good, or at least used to be. I feel arch is pretty much the same than any other binary based distro. With gentoo you gain more of a feel what is dependant on what, how software can be configured in several ways, how you can configure the kernel, how it makes sense to sometimes apply your own patches to software, and how a lot of the configuration of system services works. I don't get a feel that's a big part of the arch experience.
It's not a big part of the binary distro experience in general, and this is why the Gentoo wiki isn't as accessible as the Arch: there's a lot of information that only pertains to folks who build their own systems. There's no need to discuss the kernel flags that will break specific software packages if your kernels are all binaries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Anarki Main
The gentoo wiki is also good, or at least used to be. I feel arch is pretty much the same than any other binary based distro. With gentoo you gain more of a feel what is dependant on what, how software can be configured in several ways, how you can configure the kernel, how it makes sense to sometimes apply your own patches to software, and how a lot of the configuration of system services works. I don't get a feel that's a big part of the arch experience.

Naturally you'll have to learn, if you want to you can learn anywhere, if you don't, you'll learn nothing, no matter the distro.

I spent time on learning about apkbuilds and personally, after a short time back on Gentoo, I went back to Alpine. I like the simplicity and being able to stick with a stable release that doesn't change much. Rolling releases nowadays are just too much.
Popping in to say Gentoo specifically gave me skills that I used several times afterwards in my professional life. I wouldn't use it for everyday work but I initially used it for crossdev (which is fucking awesome) and it really taught me a lot about building software with heaps of dependencies. Would recommend if you can do with the machine you're running it on being unable to complete an update occasionally.
 
I think one of the benefits of Gentoo is how easy it is to fix. The handbook teaches you how to chroot into your system so you can use your own install media to fix stuff.
Yeah that's why I say that about portage. Though on the patching suckless software thing. If you want more than one patch on it, like I would for dwm. It ends up being more work through portage than just doing it myself. Since usually the patches fail after one, so you have to find the issue fix that like normal, but it has an extra step, since you have to edit the diff file to make sure portage can figure out what it needs to do to patch it correctly. Rather than just manually adding the rest of the lines that failed into dwm's source code. So I just end up still doing it without portage.

On the arch, arch wiki, and Gentoo wiki thing.

The thing I really like about arch, is how fast you can set up just about anything, it doesn't install a bunch of extra stuff that gets in your way, it adds basically just enough to have a working base that you can do whatever you want on top of, and not have to worry about dealing with yourself. I think that's part of why there are so many different post install scripts, and also distros based on it.

Also having a rolling release distro does have its own benefits. Particularly having support for newer software. Rather than just hoping the distro maintainers happened to pick a version of whatever you need that doesn't suck.

It does have some potential to cause issues, but at least in my experience with arch it really doesn't happen often. The way arch releases updates takes care of a lot of the potential issues for you (like issues with libraries and dependencies). Especially if you aren't running the testing repos, which I highly recommend against running.

On the wiki thing I find both the arch wiki, and Gentoo wiki are pretty good. The Gentoo wiki is still useful even if you aren't compiling anything. Generally if I am trying to learn about something I check both no matter what so I am using.

On the topic of learning how your system works. I have been messing around lately with a lot of the less used stuff lately. Like the bsd's (highly recommend not using them if I'm being real at best it's a good thing for learning about how a Unix system works, just save yourself some time and use Linux), and some of the older Linux distros, that do things a bit more like they did way back in the day. And while Gentoo has taught me some things about running my system. I feel like it's a whole new level you have to get into when trying to run those comfortably in modern day. You never realize how much automatic dependency resolution matters until you dont have it. Or an init system that just works with a couple commands.
 
So Arch users are annoying because they constantly talk about how they use Arch and how they set up their system because they're really interested in using and setting up Linux
I thought the "arch btw" reputation came about due to the self-importance of people who treated installing Arch as some elite challenge that required deep tech knowledge, when in reality you just followed instructions on the Wiki after brushing up on which specific hardware components your computer had.

Also having a rolling release distro does have its own benefits. Particularly having support for newer software. Rather than just hoping the distro maintainers happened to pick a version of whatever you need that doesn't suck.
The main benefit is being close to upstream, with as little modifications as possible. At least it is to the people maintaining packages, so you get more of them more often. On the other hand, you're not protected from upstream's retarded decisions and you're trusting every package author to have decent test coverage and not break your use case in the latest version. Debian's package maintainers are champions of autism, not everybody can maintain that large of a stable repo.
 
I use Arch btw (sorry, not sorry).

Also, I really do not have a fucking clue what I’m doing but I understand if it breaks, it’s 99.9% my fault. I think the bleeding edge stuff was an attraction as I expected it to break more often (and then I’d learn more).

Twisted thinking I guess but the only thing of note I ever did previously was programming my spectrum as a kid, dicking about in DOS and html in the 90’s.
 
I thought the "arch btw" reputation came about due to the self-importance of people who treated installing Arch as some elite challenge that required deep tech knowledge, when in reality you just followed instructions on the Wiki after brushing up on which specific hardware components your computer had.
I think the "arch btw" meme came from people who use Arch mentioning how they use Arch all the time. The Arch elitism is one of the many good reasons people are annoyed by and make fun of Arch users, but I don't think they're super connected. Maybe I'm wrong though, that was just always how I interpreted the memes.
 
What I can say for sure. Is the reason I like arch, and use it. Is package management is the easiest to deal with of anything else, also might be the fastest. The standard repos have a lot. And everything that isn't there is in the aur just about. I don't think I ever run into situations on it where I have to decide if I want to get a flatpak, app image, or look on GitHub. I just install it with pacman or an aur helper.

And the packages are up to date. I found with Debian especially after using arch I got annoyed when I was using something and it didn't have features I had already been using a year on Arch in their packages, especially so on ones that get a lot of development.

If you don't have particularly new hardware, and you don't really install anything, or change anything you are using. I could see arch not being worth using. But to me it's hard to actually be happy with the more stable distros at this point. I think Gentoo also being rolling release is the reason I ended up sticking around with that too, and liking it. That and the ideas behind it I find interesting.
 
And the packages are up to date. I found with Debian especially after using arch I got annoyed when I was using something and it didn't have features I had already been using a year on Arch in their packages, especially so on ones that get a lot of development.
Debian Sid is closer to Arch when it comes to the frequency of updates (I'm still really annoyed at how Debian separates headers into -dev packages and for all I've searched there seems to be no option to automatically install headers? It's really annoying if you have a system where you constantly compile stuff from source and are always missing a couple of header files).
 
Debian Sid is closer to Arch when it comes to the frequency of updates (I'm still really annoyed at how Debian separates headers into -dev packages and for all I've searched there seems to be no option to automatically install headers? It's really annoying if you have a system where you constantly compile stuff from source and are always missing a couple of header files).
Sounds like you have a problem. A problem where you need to become the Debian package maintainer for the software you install from source problem.
 
Back