Jump to content

Anyone have any success installing LabVIEW with Wine?


Recommended Posts

I've tried both NXG and 2020 (both Community Edition) and get the same problem: the "NI Package Manager" window appears, but it's solid black, and just hangs. I know LabVIEW probably wasn't designed with Wine in mind, but is anyone aware of a fix? It would be nice to run it on Linux without all the overhead of a VM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, flarn2006 said:

It would be nice to run it on Linux without all the overhead of a VM.

I haven't tried WINE, but there is a Linux installer for non-community versions of LabVIEW: https://www.ni.com/en-us/support/downloads/software-products/download.labview.html#344886 (It uses RPM packages)

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JKSH said:

I haven't tried WINE, but there is a Linux installer for non-community versions of LabVIEW: https://www.ni.com/en-us/support/downloads/software-products/download.labview.html#344886 (It uses RPM packages)

It seems to think that LabVIEW 2020 isn't the latest version, saying an SSP subscription is required to download it. My guess is there's a bug where it thinks "2020 Patch" is the latest, even though it requires "2020" in order to install.

Still though, it doesn't have Community Edition. But it does make me wonder about something: IIRC the only reason they don't have it available for Linux is because of technical issues with the license manager, rather than any desire to force people to use Windows. So if I were to download a different edition for Linux and crack it to work without a license, while I'm aware that would be against the EULA, would I really be violating the spirit of the EULA as long as I don't use it for anything I wouldn't be allowed to use Community Edition for? It would only be as a necessary part of a workaround for something they'd presumably allow if it were technically feasible, so maybe NI wouldn't care. That's how I see it anyway. Don't take that as legal advice though!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flarn2006 said:

It seems to think that LabVIEW 2020 isn't the latest version, saying an SSP subscription is required to download it. My guess is there's a bug where it thinks "2020 Patch" is the latest, even though it requires "2020" in order to install.

It's not related to latest vs. older. The patches don't require a login to download (even 2009 SP1 Patch). The full versions require logging in with an account with an active SSP.

 

1 hour ago, flarn2006 said:

That's how I see it anyway.

How does NI, the software's author, see it? Talk to them. If they give you the go-ahead, then go for it.

Edited by JKSH
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JKSH said:

It's not related to latest vs. older. The patches don't require a login to download (even 2009 SP1 Patch). The full versions require logging in with an account with an active SSP.

It specifically says "previous versions" in the message.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, flarn2006 said:

It seems to think that LabVIEW 2020 isn't the latest version, saying an SSP subscription is required to download it. My guess is there's a bug where it thinks "2020 Patch" is the latest, even though it requires "2020" in order to install.

Still though, it doesn't have Community Edition. But it does make me wonder about something: IIRC the only reason they don't have it available for Linux is because of technical issues with the license manager, rather than any desire to force people to use Windows. So if I were to download a different edition for Linux and crack it to work without a license, while I'm aware that would be against the EULA, would I really be violating the spirit of the EULA as long as I don't use it for anything I wouldn't be allowed to use Community Edition for? It would only be as a necessary part of a workaround for something they'd presumably allow if it were technically feasible, so maybe NI wouldn't care. That's how I see it anyway. Don't take that as legal advice though!

LabVIEW on non-Windows platforms has no license manager built in. This means that if you could download the full installer just like that, there would be no way for NI to enforce anyone to have a valid license when using it. So only the patches are downloadable without a valid SSP subscription, since they are only incremental installers that add to an existing full install, usually replacing some files.

That's supposedly also the main reason holding back a release of the Community editions on non-Windows platforms.

I made LabVIEW run on Wine way back with LabVIEW 5.0 or so, also providing some patches to the Wine project along the lines. It was a rough ride and far from perfect even with the Wine patches applied but it sort of worked. Current Wine is a lot better but so are the requirements of current LabVIEW in terms of the Win32 API that it exercises. That NI package manager won't work is not surprising, it is most likely HEAVILY relaying on .Net functionality and definitely not developed towards the .Net Core specification but rather the full .Net release. I doubt you can get it to work with .Net prior to at least 4.6.2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rolf Kalbermatter said:

LabVIEW on non-Windows platforms has no license manager built in. This means that if you could download the full installer just like that, there would be no way for NI to enforce anyone to have a valid license when using it. So only the patches are downloadable without a valid SSP subscription, since they are only incremental installers that add to an existing full install, usually replacing some files.

Ah right, I forgot about that. Though I swear I remember using a trial version on my Mac at some point back when I used one.

I wonder though, do they really need anything elaborate for a license manager? I doubt it would be difficult to put something together from scratch. I guess it wouldn't necessarily be worth the effort for a free product though—hell, I wasn't expecting them to ever give away LabVIEW for noncommercial hobbyist use at all, as much as I hoped they would.

I already filled out the Site Feedback form reporting it as a bug, but I guess if nothing else it'll make them aware that the message is misleading.

I'm going to try bypassing the NI Package Manager by copying an already-completed installation from a VM into Wine.

Edited by flarn2006
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, flarn2006 said:

Ah right, I forgot about that. Though I swear I remember using a trial version on my Mac at some point back when I used one.

Well they do have (ar at least had) an Evaluation version but that is a specially compiled version with watermark and/or limited functionality. 

 

Quote

I wonder though, do they really need anything elaborate for a license manager? I doubt it would be difficult to put something together from scratch. I guess it wouldn't necessarily be worth the effort for a free product though—hell, I wasn't expecting them to ever give away LabVIEW for noncommercial hobbyist use at all, as much as I hoped they would.

The license manager included in the executable is only a small part of the work. The Windows version uses the FlexLM license manager but the important thing is the server binding to their license server(s). Just hacking a small license manager into the executable that does some verification is not that a big part. Tieing it into the existing license server infrastructure however is a major effort. And setting up a different license server infrastructure is most likely even more work. That is where the main effort is located. I have a license manager of my own that I have included in a compiled library (shared library part not the LabVIEW interface itself) and while it was some work to develop and making it work on all LabVIEW platforms, that pales in comparison to what would be needed to make an online license server and adding a real e-commerce interface to it would be even more work.

Edited by Rolf Kalbermatter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.