Live distro with Wine installed

[Troken]

Hi,

I will use a USB-stick for a live distro to bring with me where ever I go. If im not completely wrong, the Mint editions do not have Wine installed in the live version. Any suggestions on distos that have Wine?

I know about persistence, but it wont help, I need the live functionality.

[tdockery97]

The only distros I know of are very heavyweight, like Oz Unity and PinGuy. An option might be to do a remaster with remastersys on a lightweight distro like Mint 10 LXDE after you've installed wine on it. I have used a remastersys copy to install to USB before and it worked. The remaster you make boots and works just like a live CD.

[wayne128]

Zorin comes with wine preinstalled also. It has a Zorin lite version. It is ubuntu based
Another one I used with wine preinstalled is Kanotix, it is KDE desktop Debian based with ubuntu 2.6.38 kernel, tracking stable repos.

However, you could always install wine by apt-get install wine on terminal, just that it takes a while because wine has a large size.

[Troken]

The only distros I know of are very heavyweight, like Oz Unity and PinGuy. An option might be to do a remaster with remastersys on a lightweight distro like Mint 10 LXDE after you've installed wine on it. I have used a remastersys copy to install to USB before and it worked. The remaster you make boots and works just like a live CD.

Would that make it as versatile as a Live CD when it comes to detecting hardware? I want a live one so it could work on most machines.

Zorin comes with wine preinstalled also. It has a Zorin lite version. It is ubuntu based
Another one I used with wine preinstalled is Kanotix, it is KDE desktop Debian based with ubuntu 2.6.38 kernel, tracking stable repos.

However, you could always install wine by apt-get install wine on terminal, just that it takes a while because wine has a large size.

I'll check out Zorin. But about your advice with apt-get, would that really work on a Live-distro? I didn't think you could do any changes or install anything.

[wayne128]

when you run on Live USB or Live CD, apt-get install [program] always will work. The only thing is it installs on RAM and hence not persistent.
So each time you reboot you must do it again and that is painful if it is a big program like wine.

[Troken]

when you run on Live USB or Live CD, apt-get install [program] always will work. The only thing is it installs on RAM and hence not persistent.
So each time you reboot you must do it again and that is painful if it is a big program like wine.

Ah, but still, if you only need it temporarly, its a solution. Didn't know, thank you!

[rivenathos]

Super OS might be a distro to consider. The Live DVD comes with Wine installed. It is available in 32-bit and 64-bit versions, too.

[feed3]

I'm prefer knoppix more, i recommend it for you based on what you have posted. It has built-in persistent features, has wine in live environment, very light in resources usage, based on debian (which i always prefer apt-get over yum and always like synaptic more than other,detect all hardwares on all machine that i boot it into, not to forget it is born as live distro right from its early days.

[AlbertP]

There's no need to prefer apt-get over yum. Yum requests a package from the repository while apt-get has to update its offline package cache with the 'update' command. I have found the yum solution to work some faster, as you only get the repository info you need and not the complete list of 30000 packages into the apt cache. By the way, apt-get is in the repository of some RPM distros, at least Fedora and Mandriva can use it with their RPM repos.

[DrHu]

The only reply I would make to that comment is that wine is not windows
--so the idea of detecting devices or running dos/windows programs under wine; which does not completely or even mostly replace windows OS (almost any version) to play games for example is not a viable choice

A VM, such as virtualbox or Vmware etc, is a better choice if you wanted a seamless or faster booting windows OS being able to run windows applications (not games) directly within a Linux host, might be a better choice

If its for games, either dosbox or dosemu, for dos games or a bootable native windows partition multiboot for dos/windows games is the better option..
--or if you want a separate computer just for games, any old computer or newer if you want the faster processor car/bus /RAM options only for PC games..
--or buy an Xbox or Sony Playstation etc !

[feed3]

There's no need to prefer apt-get over yum. Yum requests a package from the repository while apt-get has to update its offline package cache with the 'update' command. I have found the yum solution to work some faster, as you only get the repository info you need and not the complete list of 30000 packages into the apt cache. By the way, apt-get is in the repository of some RPM distros, at least Fedora and Mandriva can use it with their RPM repos.

It's good to know that info. Thanks.
I don't know if it is just me, but apt-get always much faster in this machine. Maybe because of my location, maybe because of our network, i don't know. But as it is way too slow when i use it, that's the reason i more prefer apt-get and synaptic for package management. BTW, seems we are off-topic here.
Anyway, thanks for the info.