Welcome!

Join our community of MMO enthusiasts and game developers! By registering, you'll gain access to discussions on the latest developments in MMO server files and collaborate with like-minded individuals. Join us today and unlock the potential of MMO server development!

Join Today!

¤ The Complete PW Package ¤

Junior Spellweaver
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
186
Reaction score
22
Linux support is only persuaded by the support of it is industry and warranty of service. It has nothing to do with comparability across versions and editions. You can still install the packages offline if you are not using a distro officiated downloader like apt-get. Just use the linux OS with the supported comparability and kernel package. I like always the shortcut. Instead of changing the OS version over and over. Just provide the required packages to install on the provided OS by you. That way your support of your release can have a lifetime run. Windows 10 is unnecessary as well. If you notice the whole lot of Operating systems now are taking the path of closed platforms like consoles. Sooner or later, Jailbreak over operating systems will become a thing like on Android platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 343
Newbie Spellweaver
Joined
Apr 17, 2021
Messages
20
Reaction score
7
The more I have been thinking about it, the more I want to 'future proof' this release too (especially since/if this winds up being my last release/update)!

So, the segmentation fault errors that Ubuntu 12.04.3 is causing in Win10 and/or VMware 16 environments does have me (overall) concerned about this..! So, moving forward I am going to look into a version that will not seg fault under a Win10/VMware16 - but is also already EOL...

My thoughts behind this are, if I just update to "the latest and greatest" or to *anything* that's currently still "supported" (in ANY way [including ESM]) - they could change something, at any point, that would cause it and or this package to no longer work! So, my thoughts/hopes are that a fully EOL version of Ubuntu server, that doesn't already currently incur a segmentation fault on Win10/VMware16, may be the most solid choice to go with for said "future proofing"... Because if/since it's already EOL, they will NOT be changing anything about it moving forward... So, at least in theory, that would mean that version combined with this package could (again in theory) work "forever"... And that's what I want, I would like for this release package to still be able to function 100 or even 1000 years from now (even if they have to go back to Win7 or Win10 too)..!

So, all that being said I have already begun my research on which version of Ubuntu I should "require" and use in/for/with this package release..! So far most of my homework has been reading and studying this page ~ Which, if I'm reading it correctly, they actually EOL'd 12.04.3 in 2014..! As where even the "base" 12.04 (12.04.0) received support until EOL in 2017..! Also, it looks as though 12.04.5 is actually still "supported" (in "ESM") as well..!

So, my current thoughts are switching the "requirement" to be for Ubuntu 12.04 x64 - instead of 12.04.3..! I am currently testing some of the things that I can test to assure I can switch this over from 12.04.3 to base 12.04 (12.04.0)... However, I CANNOT test to see if 12.04.0 gets a seg fault when installing on Win10/VMware16 since I do not have either...

So, if someone could please let me know if Ubuntu 12.04 (12.04.0) gets the segmentation fault on Win10/VMware16 (like 12.04.3 does) ~ I would GREATLY appreciate it..!





I have Win 10 and i'm downloading both links now.
Will let you know as soon ubuntu finishes DL... is taking forever.

Thank you
 
  • Like
Reactions: 343
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
2,299
Linux support is only persuaded by the support of it is industry and warranty of service. It has nothing to do with comparability across versions and editions. You can still install the packages offline if you are not using a distro officiated downloader like apt-get. Just use the linux OS with the supported comparability and kernel package. I like always the shortcut. Instead of changing the OS version over and over. Just provide the required packages to install on the provided OS by you. That way your support of your release can have a lifetime run. Windows 10 is unnecessary as well. If you notice the whole lot of Operating systems now are taking the path of closed platforms like consoles. Sooner or later, Jailbreak over operating systems will become a thing like on Android platform.

Let me preface by saying: I think I "get" what you're saying, I think...

But I've been between a rock and a hard spot with the "requirements" of this package all along because it's not even meant for Windows anything in the first place; well the client is of course, but the server is NOT... The server is MEANT to be installed on ACTUAL linux, not a VM... BUT I also know, or maybe just assume? That most people downloading this will not have a spare machine (let alone an actual server machine) to run it on, and are most likely downloading it to "play around" (AKA "mess around")... Maybe even made a server that their family/friends will play on; but will likely never run a server that will see numbers in the thousands..!

All that being said, the ONLY reason this package "requires" a specific OS: Ubuntu 12.04.3 x64 - is because of the offline install it does of IA32-LIBS..! I do want the "base package" to have absolutely ZERO external dependencies - ergo, can be installed with absolutely no interwebs connection whatsoever :):

That being said I often say "requires" specifically in quotes because obviously anyone with enough experience will know how to make it work with ANY OS of their choice... While the default installer I've made does "require" what it requires, there are plenty of ways around this - some I've even built in (for those who care to look)! So, could you take this and manually install it on Ubuntu 20.x, sure... Could you take it and install it on CentOS, or RH, or FC, - I'm almost sure of it... If you want to, and (actually) know what you're doing...

I'm thinking that will not be most people that download this...

At one point I thought about going down the path of making it a "real" .DEB; but then I urged myself against that because I figured why limit it to DEBIAN based distros!? For the same reason I wouldn't have considered making it an .RPM either...!

But for the most basic of use (and users) I have to "require" what I have to "require" in order to facilitate an installation which is 100% "self sufficient"! That, as long as you have the "required" OS (ISO) and this package (ISOs) and a PC, you can and will succeed at getting it installed. Even if the interwebs blew up tomorrow and ceased to exist, or if you were on an island with a laptop and a solar generator ROFL... Or whatever scenario you could dream up (that's never even going to happen in the first place)... But, point being = it has NO/ZERO external dependencies :):

So, back to point - I think LOL; sure, Ubuntu x64 12.04.3 would continue to "do the job" if actually installing it on a physical machine (like a server)! Which is what this SHOULD be, but I also DO have to "cater" (to some degree) to those which I know will not "do things 'right'" whether by choice, or limitation...

So I do suppose for the actual longevity moving forward; I can supply Ubuntu 12.04 LTS x64, this package, and at some point I may find myself having to add an ISO for Win7 / Win10 for the client, and for those who actually WANT (again, for whatever reason, choice or hardware/financial limitation) to also run the Server in a VM with a Win host...

So, IDK if that all even made any sense, but I know what I'm thinking LOL I guess to TL;DR would be; yes, there's NO reason for "compatibility" between Win and Linux (and VMs)... BUT; I also know/figure that is how MOST people that DL this are actually gonna use it! So while I cannot assure 100% compatibility - I will still do my best to make sure my package/release is as versatile as humanly possible..!
 
Newbie Spellweaver
Joined
Apr 17, 2021
Messages
20
Reaction score
7
The more I have been thinking about it, the more I want to 'future proof' this release too (especially since/if this winds up being my last release/update)!

So, the segmentation fault errors that Ubuntu 12.04.3 is causing in Win10 and/or VMware 16 environments does have me (overall) concerned about this..! So, moving forward I am going to look into a version that will not seg fault under a Win10/VMware16 - but is also already EOL...

My thoughts behind this are, if I just update to "the latest and greatest" or to *anything* that's currently still "supported" (in ANY way [including ESM]) - they could change something, at any point, that would cause it and or this package to no longer work! So, my thoughts/hopes are that a fully EOL version of Ubuntu server, that doesn't already currently incur a segmentation fault on Win10/VMware16, may be the most solid choice to go with for said "future proofing"... Because if/since it's already EOL, they will NOT be changing anything about it moving forward... So, at least in theory, that would mean that version combined with this package could (again in theory) work "forever"... And that's what I want, I would like for this release package to still be able to function 100 or even 1000 years from now (even if they have to go back to Win7 or Win10 too)..!

So, all that being said I have already begun my research on which version of Ubuntu I should "require" and use in/for/with this package release..! So far most of my homework has been reading and studying this page ~ Which, if I'm reading it correctly, they actually EOL'd 12.04.3 in 2014..! As where even the "base" 12.04 (12.04.0) received support until EOL in 2017..! Also, it looks as though 12.04.5 is actually still "supported" (in "ESM") as well..!

So, my current thoughts are switching the "requirement" to be for Ubuntu 12.04 x64 - instead of 12.04.3..! I am currently testing some of the things that I can test to assure I can switch this over from 12.04.3 to base 12.04 (12.04.0)... However, I CANNOT test to see if 12.04.0 gets a seg fault when installing on Win10/VMware16 since I do not have either...

So, if someone could please let me know if Ubuntu 12.04 (12.04.0) gets the segmentation fault on Win10/VMware16 (like 12.04.3 does) ~ I would GREATLY appreciate it..!






Took 1h to DL ubuntu, idk why, but, here it installed without any issue.
Lemme know If you need further help.

:)

343 - ¤ The Complete PW Package ¤ - RaGEZONE Forums




IDk if helps but my system is:

Ryzen 5 3500,
16gb, gtx 1070
Win 10 pro
 
  • Like
Reactions: 343
Elite Diviner
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
475
Reaction score
345
I know that lotta people prefer VMware, but VMware is heavy on the host hardware and resources. .. I use vbox as it does better for non gui setups... I recently setup on Debian 10 headless, with mariadb, php7, Java11 with no segment faults... Even got pwadmin (portable) working...
 
Junior Spellweaver
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
186
Reaction score
22
Let me preface by saying: I think I "get" what you're saying, I think...

But I've been between a rock and a hard spot with the "requirements" of this package all along because it's not even meant for Windows anything in the first place; well the client is of course, but the server is NOT... The server is MEANT to be installed on ACTUAL linux, not a VM... BUT I also know, or maybe just assume? That most people downloading this will not have a spare machine (let alone an actual server machine) to run it on, and are most likely downloading it to "play around" (AKA "mess around")... Maybe even made a server that their family/friends will play on; but will likely never run a server that will see numbers in the thousands..!

All that being said, the ONLY reason this package "requires" a specific OS: Ubuntu 12.04.3 x64 - is because of the offline install it does of IA32-LIBS..! I do want the "base package" to have absolutely ZERO external dependencies - ergo, can be installed with absolutely no interwebs connection whatsoever :):

That being said I often say "requires" specifically in quotes because obviously anyone with enough experience will know how to make it work with ANY OS of their choice... While the default installer I've made does "require" what it requires, there are plenty of ways around this - some I've even built in (for those who care to look)! So, could you take this and manually install it on Ubuntu 20.x, sure... Could you take it and install it on CentOS, or RH, or FC, - I'm almost sure of it... If you want to, and (actually) know what you're doing...

I'm thinking that will not be most people that download this...

At one point I thought about going down the path of making it a "real" .DEB; but then I urged myself against that because I figured why limit it to DEBIAN based distros!? For the same reason I wouldn't have considered making it an .RPM either...!

But for the most basic of use (and users) I have to "require" what I have to "require" in order to facilitate an installation which is 100% "self sufficient"! That, as long as you have the "required" OS (ISO) and this package (ISOs) and a PC, you can and will succeed at getting it installed. Even if the interwebs blew up tomorrow and ceased to exist, or if you were on an island with a laptop and a solar generator ROFL... Or whatever scenario you could dream up (that's never even going to happen in the first place)... But, point being = it has NO/ZERO external dependencies :):

So, back to point - I think LOL; sure, Ubuntu x64 12.04.3 would continue to "do the job" if actually installing it on a physical machine (like a server)! Which is what this SHOULD be, but I also DO have to "cater" (to some degree) to those which I know will not "do things 'right'" whether by choice, or limitation...

So I do suppose for the actual longevity moving forward; I can supply Ubuntu 12.04 LTS x64, this package, and at some point I may find myself having to add an ISO for Win7 / Win10 for the client, and for those who actually WANT (again, for whatever reason, choice or hardware/financial limitation) to also run the Server in a VM with a Win host...

So, IDK if that all even made any sense, but I know what I'm thinking LOL I guess to TL;DR would be; yes, there's NO reason for "compatibility" between Win and Linux (and VMs)... BUT; I also know/figure that is how MOST people that DL this are actually gonna use it! So while I cannot assure 100% compatibility - I will still do my best to make sure my package/release is as versatile as humanly possible..!

Have you tried wine on ubuntu + pw client? Maybe that should solve the problem regarding clients for a lifetime. When it comes to servers I am using RHEL centos. Ubuntu has proven it is drawback with all unnecessary packages and installed services which would exhaust machine resources. Anyone by today's standards can go and create their custom distro version of any linux. I guess that should solve as the problem for compatibility for server files side as well.

So here is how you keep it simple and straight:
1) Create linux with wine to support PW clients.
2) Create Custom distro with required IA32-Libs and create bootable ISO image using ubuntu base you adore most with the features you find compatible.

With that you can maintain your release package for a lifetime.

Refer to the following links to have an idea of what I am talking about:


 
  • Like
Reactions: 343
Newbie Spellweaver
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
10
Reaction score
3
The game clients run with zero configuration with Lutris + lutris-6.4-x86_64 wine. If you get an X11 error message for "not enough resources" just toggle the "Use discrete graphics" switch. The WineDB info is largely outdated, not to mention that the current wine versions natively implement almost everything dx9+ has to offer. I'm running the server in a XCP-NG vm and it's working great.
343, thanks for the package and the instructions.
 
Newbie Spellweaver
Joined
Apr 17, 2021
Messages
20
Reaction score
7
Are you using 343´s March files?
I understood that those are not up to date, but im not sure.
Im waiting him to make his new uploads available instead of fight with the ubuntu/server hehe
 
Newbie Spellweaver
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
10
Reaction score
3
Using the 18'th of March files listed in the 1st post. The major mistake on my first attempt at installing was updating Ubuntu. Just leave it as it is and configure the firewall to make sure nothing but required ports are open (game server + ssh + web). The ports are listed in the documentation on the dev_iso. As soon as the new package is up I'll see if I can provide a working XCP-NG image, probably .OVA with 4 cores and 32 GB of ram. I'm positive 16 GB is enough for all maps, however I have more than enough on my server to spare, so I went ahead with it. I also had some issues with the soft restart of the server - seems either the game server or Ubuntu have issues stopping and restarting services and the ram pool gets filled up and not emptied properly and I have to force reboot. Haven't had the time to investigate, but in all honesty I hate Ubuntu and can't force myself to deal with this for now.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
2,299
Just to reiterate; the ONLY ports that "NEED" to be open to the WAN are:

29000 ~ for the game (client/server communication)
80 ~~ for the "web" (so users can register / forum etc)
8080 ~~ if you want "Account Services" available to users (GetGold / GetItem / Guild Icon) {and don't worry pwAdmin is BLOCKED to the WAN}

That's it -- EVERY other port should NOT be open to the WAN (they're basically ONLY for INTERNAL use [like MySQL/DB, SSH etc])



If for ANY reason you "need" (or THINK you need) MySQL or SSH open to the public WAN, that's on YOU to PROPERLY configure and SECURE !!!

My recommendation is simply to NOT (EVER) have MySQL or SSH open to the public WAN !!!

The "proper" way if you did need "remote access" would be to PROPERLY set up a VPN ~ but I am NOT getting in to that here..!
 
Newbie Spellweaver
Joined
Apr 23, 2021
Messages
10
Reaction score
3
@343
The server is for my convenience only, thus the sshd. I am honestly afraid to run the server in the wild on my hardware and wan, considering I run my own DNS server and lately even this has become a target for marketing agencies, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 343
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
2,299
Using the 18'th of March files listed in the 1st post.

Oh by the way, the naming convention is going to stay the same - for the most part... Even though I'm still working on update(s) as we speak, it's ultimately "for" the 18.MAR.2021 update :wink:

Although this next time around the naming convention WILL be changing because I am dropping 12.04.3 and this will now "require" 12.04 (base 12.04.0)... So rather than being "pw-136-server_18.MAR.2021-ubuntu12.04.3_amd64.iso" it will be "pw-136-server_18.MAR.2021-ubuntu12.04_amd64.iso"

:wink:

But yes, I normally can't be bothered to actually (also) always be changing the naming convention - even if it's only for the date; because that's all the much more "work" I have to do (in all the installers/scripts)..! So I normally avoid this, especially when say I'm only changing one or two of the packages... Because lets say I was making a change or update to ONLY the 136 part... Well if I changed the naming convention for one, now I have to do it for all; and that's just that much more work..! So I try to avoid it...!

Which is another MAJOR reason for the checksums... Even if one wasn't paying attention to what's going on in the thread, they'd know if they were "up to date" or not, by evaluating the checksums..!

That being said; I AM working on an update. We are "dropping" Ubuntu 12.04.3 ~ this package will soon be using 12.04 (12.04.0)..! 12.04.3 encounters a segmentation fault when people are trying to install it using a Win10 host and or using a VMware16 VM... So I am switching the "requirements" from 12.04.3 to 12.04 (12.04.0)..!

Not only that there's going to be a MAJOR "security issue" fixed that I really shall not discuss - only because for anyone that actually doesn't know about it yet, better they don't learn of it from ME..! (put it this way, it's something REALLY bad, and EVERYONE is going to want this next and hopefully last update) !!!!!!!



but yes: TL;DR

Best way to know if you're actually "up to date" or not; is verify the checksums (don't rely on the naming convention/naming dates/times) :wink:
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
2,299
The current server side stuff is all "down" just an FYI :wink: (NOTHING client side is changing)

I was thinking about how I didn't pull the links already, and I really should have! Trust me when I say, there is something SEVERELY game / server BREAKING in the last couple versions that you are going to want to DELETE IT!

The new update isn't quite ready yet - I have to "build" it tonight and test, but I HAD to pull the links to the old one ASAP (seriously, the "thing" I fixed is THAT vital !!!)

I actually HIGHLY suggest you delete the "current" / "old" one, whether you do that now, or once the update becomes available, it's something you do NOT want continuing to float around..! It's BAD - THAT BAD..!

I have been, am, and will continue to work tirelessly on getting this newest update out to everyone..!

On the good notes, there will be a HUGE HUGE MAJOR thing "patched" in this upcoming update... It will also be compatible (once again) for those seeking to run it on Win10/VMware16... And remains "good" for vbox as well... It is (will be) now using Ubuntu 12.04 (12.04.0) Server x64... I also did a little "house cleaning" since I have to rebuild *everything*... While this will not mean much to most people who "tinker", for those who explore (in depth) and or actually "know" linux quite well - things are just a little more "tidy" now... (like cleaning up directories and making sure things are in a logical or semi logical location)...!

But seriously, back to the bad thing; Even if all you're doing is running a small little private test/mess around server - I still HIGHLY advise and even directly ask ~ that you DELETE the "current/old" release (again, whether you do it now or later once the update actually becomes available) because I do NOT want that old copy floating around... It NEEDS to die, along with the vulnerability it has...!!!!!!!!!!
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
2,299
I also discovered that, for whatever reason, my v146 Client was BORKED, so I have re-uploaded a WORKING v146 client :wink:

New SAE server ISO should be out within the next 24 - 48 hours if my testing of it goes successful :wink: And like I said, you are NOT going to want to miss this update (ESPECIALLY the SAE server ISO)!!!

Will continue to keep you posted as much as I can (did have to spend a day or so away from home, which has massively slowed my progress [despite bringing my laptop with me])... But I want to run a quick test of my new build of the SAE server ISO before upping and linking, *especially* after I just found out my v146 client waas BORKED..!! So, once I am able to run a quick test on that I will get that UP and SHARED..!! And one last/more time I will warn *everyone* that - this server update fixes something MAJORLY and SEVERELY wrong with v155 - YOU WILL NEED to get this...!!!

But for now, all the clients are still here AND working (checked)! The new PW_DEV.iso is up, and of course in anticipation for the new SAE server ISO, I've linked Ubuntu 12.04.0 !!!

A new HTTrack mirror of pwdatabase.com will come AFTER the new server is up..!!
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
2,299
All Links Are Now !! LIVE !!

Make SURE to grab this new SAE server ISO, as, like I have stated before: it has a MASSIVE and CRITICAL update for v155..!

Another way (method) you will be able to know if you have the/this latest update will be the ISO disc image icons... A small "detail" previously overlooked, I decided to add (windbloz based) icons... So, if you don't have any "custom" icon when you mount (or physically burn) the ISO's then you ARE NOT up to date! If you see these following icons for the SAE server ISO, and PW_DEV ISO then you ARE up to date..! (the clients have always had icons since they're windows native)...

343 - ¤ The Complete PW Package ¤ - RaGEZONE Forums




The next things to hit the to-do list will be taking an up to date HTTrack of pwdatabase.com and a torrent (in that order)...!
 

Attachments

You must be registered for see attachments list
Initiate Mage
Joined
Apr 29, 2021
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
amigo buenas noches yo tengo un problema al momento de llevar acabo la instalación, al parecer no se vincula mi direccion ip al momento de querer abrirla en el navegador no carga la paguina y segui las instrucciones del video, espero y me puedas ayudar
 
Back
Top