Zophar's Message Domain

Go Back   Zophar's Message Domain > Emulation Talk > General Emulation

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-27-2010, 07:56 PM   #1
Kaia
Junior Member
 
Kaia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11
Default Emulation and Linux

I'm running Linux Mint Isadora, and trying to get pSX to work. I would post this on the pSX forum, but for some reason I can't log in.

ZSNES doesn't work either. Nothing happens. Just assume that I'm a complete moron and I have no idea what I'm doing, and tell me what to do to make it work.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	WTF.png
Views:	196
Size:	61.1 KB
ID:	163  
Kaia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 02:05 PM   #2
Dimes
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2
Default

Are you running the x64 version of linux mint? I know ZSNES is not compatible with 64 bit machines.
Dimes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 06:49 PM   #3
Kaia
Junior Member
 
Kaia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11
Default

http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=54
^This is what I downloaded and installed. I have no idea if it is x64.

I was looking at the pSX readme and I found this:

Under Linux pSX requires the following shared libraries/packages :

OpenGL
ALSA
GTK
GTKGLEXT
libxml2

So I opened up the Software Manager, searched OpenGL and I found about a dozen things with OpenGL in their names. One of these things took six hours to download a third of it.

It's a good thing I'm used to frustration from rom hacking.
Kaia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 11:41 PM   #4
Reaper man
Member
 
Reaper man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaia View Post
http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=54
^This is what I downloaded and installed. I have no idea if it is x64.

(amd64) is x64. I know know how 64-bit linux handles 32-bit applications, though.
__________________
Reaper man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2010, 03:19 AM   #5
InVerse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Midwest, U.S.
Posts: 1,489
Default

If you don't know what architecture your computer utilizes, you shouldn't be using Linux.

Dependencies are called dependencies for a reason. Because the application depends on them to run.

A simple Google search resulted in multiple people running pSX on 64bit Linux. In fact, one of the first links included explicit instructions on how to install the emulator on a 64 bit platform.

The important question, however, is why are you using Linux, even if it is the child's edition? In this thread alone you've demonstrated a lack of basic computer knowledge, so what are you expecting to gain by using an operating system for which support is comparatively minimal? Seriously, I really would like to know why. It seems like there are more and more people who switch to Linux for reasons that aren't even clear to themselves and it baffles me. Come Autumn, Linux may take the first steps toward becoming a viable operating system but at the moment it offers nothing more than the ego-fueling benefits of a hybrid car with none of the ecological gain.

Edit:

And whoever said that ZSNES isn't compatible with 64 bit machines sucks at the Internet.

Last edited by InVerse; 06-05-2010 at 03:25 AM.
InVerse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 10:36 AM   #6
Lillymon
Senior Member
 
Lillymon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 2,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunken Hacker View Post
Edit:

And whoever said that ZSNES isn't compatible with 64 bit machines sucks at the Internet.
I loved this bit:

Quote:
pSX, mupen64, and/or ZSNES segfault and I can't figure out why! - rcsdnj reports that the "Data execute prevention" on x86_64 processors may be the cause of a segmentation fault.
It goes on to detail how to disable NX for ZSNES so it'll actually run.

When you're disabling security features to make an application run, it's time to give up and use something from this century. Such as Snes9x. Seriously, the GTK+ version is easy to use, more accurate, can be compiled for x64, and will work at full speed on any x64 CPU.

I've tried screwing around getting x86 applications to work on my x64 system, and failed in all cases. The fact that they're x86-only always seems to be a symptom of some greater problems underneath. I currently refuse to do it, I want either an x64 binary (to prove the developer lives in 2010) or source code that will compile and run natively on x64.
__________________
Amelia Explains It All - Eventually. Probably.
Lillymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2010, 12:50 PM   #7
InVerse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Midwest, U.S.
Posts: 1,489
Default

While I agree with the bit about not disabling security features to run an emulator (and, for that matter, the bit about using SNES9x instead of ZSNES) I have to question your conclusions regarding 64-bit architecture.

As you've said, this is 2010. At this point, I would hope a majority of individuals would have learned not to waste money needlessly. For instance, by purchasing an expensive computer system when an older one is performing adequately. I'm on a six year old dual core 2.8Ghz 32-bit system and haven't seen any need to upgrade. I have no clue who's writing most of the emulators these days but I'm guessing most of them don't have a lot of extra money lying around. As such, I would guess that a majority of them are probably still using 32-bit systems.

And seeing as how a lot of major software hasn't made the jump to 64-bit, how could you possibly expect emulator authors to do so? Mozilla has only very recently started offering "highly experimental" versions of Firefox in 64-bit, Microsoft recommended that users use the more-featureful 32-bit version of Office 2010 rather than the 64-bit version, even when running a 64-bit version of Windows and Adobe doesn't offer a 64-bit version of Flash. (Granted, that could fall under disabling security features but that's irrelevant to this discussion.)

Can you really expect emulator authors, many of whom didn't start porting their emulators to Windows until after XP came out, to be adopting a technology that is still seeing relatively minimal use? Five years from now, 64-bit architecture will probably have come into it's own but at the moment, it's not viable for the average person
InVerse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2010, 01:07 AM   #8
Lillymon
Senior Member
 
Lillymon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: England
Posts: 2,379
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunken Hacker View Post
As you've said, this is 2010. At this point, I would hope a majority of individuals would have learned not to waste money needlessly. For instance, by purchasing an expensive computer system when an older one is performing adequately. I'm on a six year old dual core 2.8Ghz 32-bit system and haven't seen any need to upgrade. I have no clue who's writing most of the emulators these days but I'm guessing most of them don't have a lot of extra money lying around. As such, I would guess that a majority of them are probably still using 32-bit systems.
I'd dispute your statement personally. From what I've heard, application development is something that benefits from having plenty of RAM and CPU power, multiple cores being especially useful if you want to spend more time coding and less time compiling.

But here's an idea. How about you make the code 64-bit safe, then use my 64-bit CPU to compile the binary? I've done this with bsnes, Snes9x-GTK, and SDLMAME. But, of course, this requires them to release the source code. All of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunken Hacker View Post
And seeing as how a lot of major software hasn't made the jump to 64-bit, how could you possibly expect emulator authors to do so?
That's like comparing optical disc video to anime fansubs. The former moves slowly and at a pace determined by the profitability of change, while the latter uses the latest and greatest technology available.

Emulators move fast, that's why I frequently choose to compile my own, as Debian's repositories have trouble keeping up. This fast movement makes it more reasonable to expect them to be on the leading edge when it comes to technology.

There's also the fact that it's generally agreed upon that in 99.99% of cases, x64 is faster than x86 for the same tasks. For the new breed of highly accurate but also quite slow emulators, more speed without needing to reduce accuracy or spend hours optimizing code is an absolute dream scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunken Hacker View Post
Mozilla has only very recently started offering "highly experimental" versions of Firefox in 64-bit,
64-bit builds have been available on Linux for years. The Windows and Mac OS X versions have lagged behind because Microsoft and Apple respectively put so much work into making 32-bit on 64-bit transparent, so Mozilla decided their limited resources were better spent on speed optimization and better standards compliance.

In other words, 64-bit wasn't profitable for them until recently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunken Hacker View Post
Microsoft recommended that users use the more-featureful 32-bit version of Office 2010 rather than the 64-bit version, even when running a 64-bit version of Windows
Ditto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunken Hacker View Post
and Adobe doesn't offer a 64-bit version of Flash.
What the hell's this then?

From Adobe's FAQ:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adobe Labs - Flash Player 10 for 64-bit Linux Frequently Asked Questions
Why arenít the Windows and Mac 64-bit alpha versions available on Adobe Labs?

Release of this alpha version of 64-bit Flash Player on Linux is the first step in delivering upon Adobeís commitment to make Flash Player native 64-bit across platforms. We chose Linux as our initial platform in response to numerous requests in our public Flash Player bug and issue management system and the fact that Linux distributions do not ship with a 32-bit browser or a comprehensive 32-bit emulation layer by default. Until this prerelease, use of 32-bit Flash Player on Linux has required the use of a plugin wrapper, which prevents full compatibility with 64-bit browsers. With this prelease, Flash Player 10 is now a full native participant on 64-bit Linux distributions. We are committed to bringing native 64-bit Flash Player to Windows and Mac in future prereleases.
There was a need on Linux, Adobe made it available on Linux. There currently isn't a need on Windows or Mac OS X, Adobe will make it available when there is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunken Hacker View Post
Can you really expect emulator authors, many of whom didn't start porting their emulators to Windows until after XP came out, to be adopting a technology that is still seeing relatively minimal use? Five years from now, 64-bit architecture will probably have come into it's own but at the moment, it's not viable for the average person
Funny that you mention Windows, I thought pSX_Author was still using the Windows mentality when he released a Linux version of pSX. An x86-only version, with no source code, that only recognizes ALSA as an audio output.

It's the Windows mentality where x86 works transparently, source code is superfluous to users, and DirectSound is the only audio output available. It doesn't work like that on Linux, and I get annoyed that we now have "The definitive PS1 emulator for Linux" which will be utterly obsolete in a few years because no one can possibly modify it to keep it working as everything around it changes because pSX_Author, for reasons I still don't understand, decided the source code must remain closed (I'd be less annoyed if I knew he had a good reason, but I don't).

Note also that the current version is almost two years old by now, and I currently see two topics asking about a segfault on Ubuntu Lucid x64 (neither of which have been addressed) and a third noting that even if it does start, pSX then fails when it can't find "libgtkglext-x11-1.0" (the only version available in Ubuntu Lucid and Debian Squeeze is "libgtkglext-x11-1.2" from what I can see). When I said x86-only was usually a symptom of greater problems underneath, this is what I was talking about

Five years from now is where my mind is. Five years from now, Windows apps will probably still work on whatever the latest version of Windows is. The chances of a binary I compiled today still working on my Debian testing/unstable system by then? I may be an edge case, but I'm the leading edge.
__________________
Amelia Explains It All - Eventually. Probably.
Lillymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2010, 12:44 AM   #9
Kaia
Junior Member
 
Kaia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Drunken Hacker View Post
If you don't know what architecture your computer utilizes, you shouldn't be using Linux.

Dependencies are called dependencies for a reason. Because the application depends on them to run.

A simple Google search resulted in multiple people running pSX on 64bit Linux. In fact, one of the first links included explicit instructions on how to install the emulator on a 64 bit platform.

The important question, however, is why are you using Linux, even if it is the child's edition? In this thread alone you've demonstrated a lack of basic computer knowledge, so what are you expecting to gain by using an operating system for which support is comparatively minimal? Seriously, I really would like to know why. It seems like there are more and more people who switch to Linux for reasons that aren't even clear to themselves and it baffles me. Come Autumn, Linux may take the first steps toward becoming a viable operating system but at the moment it offers nothing more than the ego-fueling benefits of a hybrid car with none of the ecological gain.
I bought a used netbook with windows 7 on it, but I couldn't get much of anything to work on it, and it was pretty clogged up from the previous users porn/filesharing habits, so I typed linux, linux mint came up, I looked at it and thought to myself, "Why not?"

I'm going about this the same way I started rom hacking. I saw it, thought, "That's interesting," jumped in headfirst and tried to swim. I have no formal education, nor any real chance of getting one, so if you're trying to make fun of me for my haphazard and impulsive decision making processes, just quit, I won't get it. It's no fun making fun of someone who doesn't realize what you're doing, and doesn't care enough to respond.

If anything, this has more to do with boredom - and me being poor - than any sort of down-with-teh-evil-empire-lol-microsoft-I'm-cool-now-right-guys motivation.
Kaia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2010, 02:45 AM   #10
InVerse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Midwest, U.S.
Posts: 1,489
Default

So your reason for trying Linux is the same reason that so many college kids try out gay sex. (No, seriously, it is. I'm not even trying to suggest a link between Linux and homosexuality. I mean, such a link clearly exists, but that's not why I brought up homosexuality. Not that there's anything wrong with that. (Homosexuality, I mean. There are plenty of things wrong with Linux.))

Anywayz, here's the first thing you need to know regarding ROM hacking. It doesn't work very well on Linux.
InVerse is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:45 PM.

Contact Us - Zophar's Domain - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.