Extreme noob question: where to put stars.dat in Linux?

[StarSeeker]

I'm used to running in Windows but now I'm using Linux, specifically Ubuntu 8.10. Can someone tell me what the full path is to where I should be putting the expanded stars.dat? o.O

[LordFerret]

I'm not familiar with Ubuntu, but being built from Debian (which I use) it should be similar I think. If so -

Look in /home/user/.local/share/celestia

Rename the existing stars.dat file, in case you want to revert back, then store the large version in its place.

[t00fri]

I'm not familiar with Ubuntu, but being build from Debian (which I use) it should be similar I think. If so -

Look in /home/user/.local/share/celestia

Rename the existing stars.dat file, in case you want to revert back, then store the large version in its place.

Sorry, this suggestion looks pretty "non-canonical". Certainly the extra '.' will have to be skipped. Next, /usr/local is fine with general UNIX nomenclature, but NOT /home/usr/local.

How about proceeding this way: type into the console:

> which celestia

If the result is

/usr/bin/celestia

then the Celestia data files in general and stars.dat in particular should be in

/usr/share/celestia/data

If the result is instead:

/usr/local/bin/celestia

then stars.dat should go to

/usr/local/share/celestia/data

You didn't tell us whether you are using KDE or Gnome. So I have to stop here, due to lack of important information...

Perhaps, after these examples, you can also complete the task yourself...

Fridger

[StarSeeker]

I am using Gnome. I should be able to figure it out from here. Thanks to both of you for curing my dumb. Namaste. *bows and scuttles out*

[ajtribick]

Presumably you've installed Celestia from the package manager or the Add/Remove programs window. If you have then note that the default installation of Celestia on Ubuntu 8.10 is broken. You also have to install the celestia-common-nonfree package or you will be missing pretty much all of the textures.

[StarSeeker]

I used sudo apt-get install celestia.

Do I need to also sudo apt-get install celestia-common-nonfree or is there other syntax?

[John Van Vliet]

--- edit ---

[ajtribick]

I used sudo apt-get install celestia.

Do I need to also sudo apt-get install celestia-common-nonfree or is there other syntax?

Yes you need to do that, as this package is not defined as being required for Celestia in the package manager (and there is no indication that this package would need to be installed when you go through the installation process -- apparently with Celestia, Ubuntu is catering to a bunch of purists who would rather have a broken application than anything that might possibly be unfree).

[StarSeeker]

Yes, that is one aspect of Ubuntu I don't really care for... none of the media players even have MP3 support by default for just that reason.

...

[John Van Vliet]

--- edit ---

[LordFerret]

I'm not familiar with Ubuntu, but being build from Debian (which I use) it should be similar I think. If so -

Look in /home/user/.local/share/celestia

Rename the existing stars.dat file, in case you want to revert back, then store the large version in its place.

Sorry, this suggestion looks pretty "non-canonical". Certainly the extra '.' will have to be skipped. Next, /usr/local is fine with general UNIX nomenclature, but NOT /home/usr/local.

How about proceeding this way: type into the console:

> which celestia

If the result is

/usr/bin/celestia

then the Celestia data files in general and stars.dat in particular should be in

/usr/share/celestia/data

If the result is instead:

/usr/local/bin/celestia

then stars.dat should go to

/usr/local/share/celestia/data

You didn't tell us whether you are using KDE or Gnome. So I have to stop here, due to lack of important information...

Perhaps, after these examples, you can also complete the task yourself...

Fridger

The period "." is not extra, hidden folders in Debian (and Ubuntu) start with them. The follow link applies to both Debian and Ubuntu, the examples given for Ubuntu...
http://www.debianadmin.com/how-to-view-hidden-files-and-folders-in-ubuntu-file-browser.html

As for paths, my install is standard, nothing fancy. I used the Autopackage Software Installer (GTK+) to install Celestia with... and that's where it ended up. Have a peek...

click for full size image

[LordFerret]

Yes, that is one aspect of Ubuntu I don't really care for... none of the media players even have MP3 support by default for just that reason.

...

Been there, done that. You need to install LAME.
http://lame.sourceforge.net/index.php

[t00fri]

...
The period "." is not extra, hidden folders in Debian (and Ubuntu) start with them. The follow link applies to both Debian and Ubuntu, the examples given for Ubuntu...
http://www.debianadmin.com/how-to-view-hidden-files-and-folders-in-ubuntu-file-browser.html

As for paths, my install is standard, nothing fancy. I used the Autopackage Software Installer (GTK+) to install Celestia with... and that's where it ended up. Have a peek...

click for full size image

Knowing UNIX -- the mother of all LINUX flavors -- since > 25 years in and out, I can assure you that /home/usr/local or /home/user/.local are NOT in any way standard elements of a UNIX directory tree! Directory names have always been standardized in UNIX, until some strange Linux distributors apparently have even modified these...

YES there was life before Ubuntu and Debian

Syntactically, anything below /home has always been attributed to individual users, like
/home/t00fri, /home/madonna/ ...

Instead the branch /usr/local/... is meant to refer to local installations applying to ALL users.

They will eventually also loose me as a Linux affectionado, because of this unfortunate tendency to destroy UNIX universality features whereever possible! Behind these efforts to implement distribution-specific patches like mad and apparently also to support non-standardized directory nomenclature, is to prevent people from migrating between specific distributions...

Fridger

[LordFerret]

YES there was life before Ubuntu and Debian

Yes, this I know!

Instead the branch /usr/local/... is meant to refer to local installations applying to ALL users.

Such installations have to be made by the root user (admin), yes?

I didn't install Celestia as an admin, I installed it as "me" a user. That would make this -

Syntactically, anything below /home has always been attributed to individual users, like
/home/t00fri, /home/madonna/ ...

- true, yes? That being the case, I'm pretty sure that's why my Celestia install landed where it did. Maybe I should reinstall it as the root user?

[t00fri]

YES there was life before Ubuntu and Debian

Yes, this I know!

Instead the branch /usr/local/... is meant to refer to local installations applying to ALL users.

Such installations have to be made by the root user (admin), yes?

Right, as is usual for installations. Just type su (+password) and you are root.
Or you re-login as root if you need full GUI stuff.

I didn't install Celestia as an admin, I installed it as "me" a user. That would make this -

Syntactically, anything below /home has always been attributed to individual users, like
/home/t00fri, /home/madonna/ ...

- true, yes? That being the case, I'm pretty sure that's why my Celestia install landed where it did. Maybe I should reinstall it as the root user?

Absolutely! That's the canonical procedure. Don't forget the executable has to be placed into a canonical (bin) directory, E.g. /usr/local/bin, that is part of the execution PATH. The latter meaning that you can call the application JUST by it's name anywhere and it will be executed.

Fridger

[John Van Vliet]

--- edit ---

[LordFerret]

Awesome reference John, thanks for the link. I've not seen that one before, I'm bookmarking it.

I'll reinstall Celestia as root - right after I finish the upgrade to "Lenny".