Did my terminal just break?

[BigBadBeef]

PoP!_os updated recently... and is it possible that it broke the terminal?

Basically what you're looking at in this picture is is the exact path to where the file is, both in the terminal AND file explorer, and yet the terminal seems to think it doesn't exist! I literally highlighted the file in question in both screenshots, but the terminal returns blank even when I search for it!

 

[wendy-lebaron]

LOL find is telling you the truth, there is no Vintagestory.exe!

There seems to be an executable but without "dot-exe".

I had thought the screenshot was animated, but now I noticed a second one while typing this reply. In the screenshot I can't find an Vintagestory.exe.

Wait. This might be because the file manager hides the suffix if it recognizes the file association from "MIME types". Ohh...

EDIT: a bit OCD today...

 

[BigBadBeef]

LOL find is telling you the truth, there is no Vintagestory.exe!

There seems to be an executable but without "dot-exe".

I had thought the screenshot was animated, but now I noticed a second one while typing this reply. In the screenshot I can't find an Vintagestory.exe.

Wait. This might be because the file manager hides the suffix if it recognizes the file association from "MIME types". Ohh...

EDIT: a bit OCD today...

Interesting theory, let me test it here...

EDIT: So yeah, that application updated, and somehow replaced the .exe with #THAT# (look at screenshot from my original post). I will need to take a poke at the developers for this one!

EDIT2: Interesting, it IS an executable, but it is not a .exe?

 

[KGIII]

EDIT2: Interesting, it IS an executable, but it is not a .exe?

More or less an aside:

We don't tend to use .exe in Linux. There'd be too much confusion with Windows executables.

In fact, we don't much care about extensions. We depend on things like magic bytes and setting the executable bit.

 

[MikeWalsh]

@KGIII :-

Mm. Fair comment. So; explain this one to me....

I was reading an article over on OMG!Ubuntu! the other day. They were celebrating Ubuntu's 19th birthday, and had given a link to the entire list of Ubuntu releases.......every single one of which Canonical have still got on their servers, believe it or not, all the way back to 4.10 'Warty Warthog'.

Just for the hell of it, I downloaded the 'Warty' Live ISO - not the installer ISO (they didn't have hybrid ISOs and one release that would both run AND install in those days). I was curious to see what the layout was like, so having downloaded it, I opened the ISO up. Imagine my surprise when I found a whole bunch of M$ PE32 'executable' .exe files.....

And does anybody know what that 50+ MB "morphix" shell-script toward the end was all about? Unless, of course, it's related to this:-

DistroWatch.com: Morphix

News and feature lists of Linux and BSD distributions.

distrowatch.com

.....which was apparently born (and died) in 2003.

When did the Linux community embrace the ELF system for executables?


Mike.

 

[KGIII]

I opened the ISO up. Imagine my surprise when I found a whole bunch of M$ PE32 'executable' .exe files.....

Buggered if I know. LOL AFAIK, we've used magic bytes and executable bits since the Unix days.

For example, find your favorite .sh file, make sure it's executable, and then remove the .sh before running it in the terminal. Unless something's broken (or wildly different with Puppy) it should run just fine.

This is true with a text file. Name it 'foo' and add some plain text. It's now a text file and (should/will) open in your plain text editor.

Next, find your favorite bar.png and rename it to just plain bar - and it'll still open in your image viewer.

(Unless Puppy does strange things.)

Edit: I should add that you can fool it. Rename your .png as a .txt and your system might then think it's a text file. So, it's not infallible. But, you can rename it as bar.whatever and it should still happily open as an image file.

 

[BigBadBeef]

More or less an aside:

We don't tend to use .exe in Linux. There'd be too much confusion with Windows executables.

In fact, we don't much care about extensions. We depend on things like magic bytes and setting the executable bit.

It was supposed to be a native Linux app. It was supposed to be run via the Exectuable.

 

[MikeWalsh]

@KGIII :-

I graduated from merely 'packaging' to writing & putting together my own utilities from scratch, a few years ago. Many of them use a whole bunch of small, inter-linked scripts. Apart from the early days - when I dutifully used the '.sh' suffix because you're supposed to - I very quickly dropped them. Mainly because everything just looked so much 'tidier' without '.sh' stuck onto everything!

The interpreter reads

#!/bin/sh

.....on the first line of every script. So of course it knows it's a shell-script, and executes it accordingly.

(shrug...)

I do things the way I do because it follows the spirit of Unix/Linux. One small script performs a simple, related group of actions.....to the best of its ability. Rather than trying to make a single script execute about a million different things; for me, at my present stage of comprehension, it's far simpler to write a 'command' script that refers to/calls a bunch of other, smaller scripts as & when necessary.

I may get around to doing a whole bunch of stuff with a single script.......but I'm not there YET. It'll come, I daresay. Remember, 'tis all but a hobby for me; it's not like I need to learn/teach myself this stuff in the course of my employment. I'm no longer ON that treadmill, thank Christ!

I learn things entirely at my own pace.....as & when I feel the 'need' to.


Mike.

 

[JasKinasis]

It was supposed to be a native Linux app. It was supposed to be run via the Exectuable.

It looks like it IS a native Linux app.
If you look at the contents of the directory in the terminal, the executable will simply be called Vintagestory. So what you’re looking for and what you need to run is called Vintagestory, NOT Vintagestory.exe.

In fact, if you navigate to the directory containing the executable and type:

file ./Vintagestory

It will probably tell you that it’s an ELF executable.

And you definitely haven’t broken your terminal!

 

[BigBadBeef]

It looks like it IS a native Linux app.
If you look at the contents of the directory in the terminal, the executable will simply be called Vintagestory. So what you’re looking for and what you need to run is called Vintagestory, NOT Vintagestory.exe.

In fact, if you navigate to the directory containing the executable and type:

file ./Vintagestory

It will probably tell you that it’s an ELF executable.

And you definitely haven’t broken your terminal!

Its not that I don't beleive you, the problem is that I am supposed to run using custom parameters and using the mono framework.