Hello,
I'm start to use Ubuntu linux for some small tasks (I have very small knowledge) and I would like to know how to (procedure) to install the new beta version of WinBox on my Ubuntu 24.04 machine, but found no info about.

Can anybody show me how to do so?

Tks,
Enrico

just download it from mkt website, unzip and run the binary.

Hi,

I tried selecting the WinBox file and hit the "run" but it does nothing (attached screenshot). Any suggestion?

You probably need to set file attributes to add executable bit.

It may be easier to see what is the problem if you open terminal window and try to run winbox from there ... it'll probably print out messages detailing the problem.

Hello,

I did try run from terminal and this is what I got (sorry, but my knowledge of Ubuntu is very limited)
Any hint?

Enrico

Are you sure a beta is the right program for you asking these questions?
Just take the easy road and it’ll update when it’s useable.

I did try run from terminal and this is what I got (sorry, but my knowledge of Ubuntu is very limited)

@Enrico: From the command line, try:
$ chmod +x Winbox
$ ./Winbox

Hello,
Well 3 options...
1. This forum is bad place to ask for something based on Linux
2. The native Linux version of WinBox it is not working well
3. It is incredibly complicate setup this native beta version of WinBox on Linux.

Anyway I did solve this... because I use a Mac and the native beta version of WinBox for Mac runs just fine so I can test this version whit no problem on a Mac. Although this NEW version seems to me too fancy.

P.S.: After 30 years I have seen nobody seriously using for work the desktop version of any type of Linux; of course I have seen who is running Linux for servers but this is a different usage. Maybe this is because it is a waste of time to learn so much complicated linux commands if Windows or Mac can do the same in a breeze. So long live to Nadella and Cook.

Hello,
Well 3 options...
1. This forum is bad place to ask for something based on Linux
2. The native Linux version of WinBox it is not working well
3. It is incredibly complicate setup this native beta version of WinBox on Linux.

Anyway I did solve this... because I use a Mac and the native beta version of WinBox for Mac runs just fine so I can test this version whit no problem on a Mac. Although this NEW version seems to me too fancy.

P.S.: After 30 years I have seen nobody seriously using for work the desktop version of any type of Linux; of course I have seen who is running Linux for servers but this is a different usage. Maybe this is because it is a waste of time to learn so much complicated linux commands if Windows or Mac can do the same in a breeze. So long live to Nadella and Cook.

1) Maybe?
2) The native Linux version is working really well for me.
3) The setup was incredibly easy.
Oh, and every serious computer user I know uses Linux.

P.S.: After 30 years I have seen nobody seriously using for work the desktop version of any type of Linux;

I'm seriously using desktop version of linux since around 1996 ... so not for entire 30 years, but pretty close to it. I've changed a few distributions during this time for various reasons. I've started with SLS linux, switched over to Slackware shortly after. Then I changed to RedHat (because it supported 64-bit DEC alpha processors and that happened to be my desktop computer between 2000 and 2002), later I switched to debian (because RedHat became too commercial for my taste ... ad I was using debian before that for server installations). Currently I'm using both ubuntu (for its ease-of-use support of some types of hardware) and debian (because I don't like the way ubuntu is going with snap support).

And I'm pretty sure there are many more users of this forum who are serious users of desktop linux.

You're right that linux is sonetimes not as point-and-click friendly as the other OSes you're mentioning ... but the solution to your problem (posted by @Larsa) is pretty trivial and all serious users of desktop linux are likely acquainted with it (or some variant of it). And the solution is no way specific to desktop use, server would require similar solution. So if you're new to linux and you find the solution not acceptable, then this may indicate that you're better off using the other OSes ... and doesn't have much to do with the way linux works in general (i.e. don't get pissed off at linux if you can't adjust to it's speciffics, it's your fault).

P.S. this post may be deemed as harsh towards @OP ... but he started it.

After reading this thread, the problem is not located with Winbox but in front of keyboard and screen.

Read: user not being experienced enough (yet) using Linux.
Give it some time using other programs, read, experiment, fail, learn from it.

A normal learning process

Some one want to control the computer and some one want to be controlled by the computer.

Hello,
I tried again following several online tutorials but it seems that WinBox (both Wine and native versions) cannot be installed on my ARM64 VM (from Parallels Desktop) on the teminal shows that is required intel or amd chips

on the teminal shows that is required intel or amd chips

Thats answers it, binary is built only for such architecture and cannot be run without emulation. Regarding running WinBox 3 over wine, on macOS it is possible to run on ARM64 chips (Mx) because it supports emulation (Rosetta 2) out of the box, while on Linux you can use some unofficial wine which supports x86_64/x86_32 emulation like Hangover to run WinBox 3 or WinBox 4 (windows version) until WinBox 4 will have native Linux build for ARM64.

P.S.
Since you are using Parallels Desktop this means you are running it on macOS, why not then running native WinBox 4 on host?

I am finding my experience with the new UI to be annoying. It used to be drop dead simple. I am running a Rocky Linux 8 desktop (because I want to for stability and long lifespan). Anyhow, trying to Linux version craps out requiring GLIB 2.29 when I only have 2.28-251, and probably can't get 2.29 for my system.

I have always just ran the Windows version under Wine or Crossover. It also crashes. I found all of this out after upgrading a couple of my routers to 7.17.2. It would have been nice to know before hand. I jumped on a Windows virtual machine and logged into one of those and now it will not allow me to login to it again--all of this because I wanted to upgrade my firmware.

I had turned on an ACCEPT all INPUT rule in the firewall temporarily to get updates. I only logged in to click disable on that. Now I appear locked out of that firewall and will have to physically visit the site to see if I can get in perhaps even by console. I hope that isn't a glitch in the beta software.

Maybe I can get used to the new UI, but it would be really nice if you would compile another Linux version that supports older systems with glib 2.28-251, etc for people like me. I despise when I have to completely redo my operating system just to get one application working again when it was just fine before.

UPDATE: At least I did upgrade from 3.4 to 3.41 and see that I can still attach that way. Thank you for that. Oddly, logging in to this router that would not let me in on the new interface does on 3.41.

Try with patchelf, could work or not, depends if used functions exists in both versions.

Thanks for the reply. I have never used that before. I assume you mean

patchelf --replace-needed glibcversionx with version w
I am not sure how to specify either.

When I run it I get this error:
./WinBox: /lib64/libm.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.29' not found (required by ./WinBox)

I have glibc.x86_64 2.28-251.el8_10.11

How would I tell patchelf to use 2.28-251 instead of 2.29 or did you mean something else?

Try with:

Thanks for the reply. I have never used that before. I assume you mean

patchelf --replace-needed glibcversionx with version w
I am not sure how to specify either.

patchelf README doesn't mention your use case (replace required version of a SO file with different version) ... so probably it can't be done.

Try running
to see if there are other libraries which on your system are too old for the binary.

And my thought: your desire to use a very stable linux installation goes directly against your desire to run a very fresh beta software. From developers' point of view this conflict means pissible problems with compilation due to use of older libraries which might not offer functions used in developed software. Backwards compatibility goes back only some distance. It's similar to another forum user who's using a pretty old version of Firefox and tgrn complains that 7.18beta WebFig doesn't render correctly on it ... Again, I get the desire to use very stable OS environment, but that draws a line somewhere ....

Other option is to build GLIBC 2.29 and use: But as @mkx mentioned there can be other older linked libraries which will not be compatible. In such case you will need to build and link with glib 2.29 all non-compatible linked libraries and put their path in LD_PRELOAD env. variable before starting winbox. A lot of effort for that IMO. Maybe it will be less effort if from other Linux distribution with new glibc version and same architecture extract from packages glibc and other winbox dependent libs and use it for this method (patchelf + LD_PRELOAD).