Gilles Gravier ggravier at fsfe.org
Mon Jan 11 09:12:58 UTC 2010


On 11/01/2010 09:10, Tim Frost wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 10:22 +0300, Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: 
>>> Alan McKay <alan.mckay at gmail.com> :
>>>> 1)Is it possible to install .exe files in Ubuntu? And how?  
>>> Not directly.
>> You are wrong.
>>   $ cat /tmp/test.exe
>>   #!/bin/bash
>>   echo "Uh, an exe!"
>>   $ chmod 755 /tmp/test.exe
>>   $ /tmp/text.exe
> [ I assume that this should read '/tmp/test.exe' since that is the file
> name as it appears elsewhere in this example
> ] 
>>   Uh, an exe!
> NOT so.  The '.exe' suffix in the file name is (or may be) significant
> to the operating systems that originate in Redmond.  For Linux, the
> factors that control how to handle a file are:
> 1: the executable bit IS set (755 sets this bit for ALL users)
> 2: Does the file match one of the following signatures:
> a: the file signature identifies it as a binary
> that this system can execute
> OR
> b: the file is a script with an interpreter that is
> installed on this machine
> Since the example matches 2b, with interpreter = /bin/bash, then of
> course it will run (as a bash script).
> However, it MIGHT NOT  work in a Redmond OS, since those OSes expect the
> '.exe' suffix to identify a BINARY program.
> A file that meets the Microsoft criterion *might* work under Linux if
> the wine package is installed, but that is not guaranteed.

Actually, for having installed a fancy WINE  (Crossover Office), which
sets the mime-types for .exe files, this is the case. You click on an
exe and it runs it in Crossover Office. Pretty slick. But it does bring
one issue. It means you can be tricked into executing a ".exe" from a
web site, which contains a virus and will run in wine (and that could
contaminate your wine installation and any document directories it has
access to)... whereas if you don't have this enabled, ".exe" viruses
pose no threat on Linux. :)


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list