Implications for Wine from the Ubuntu Developer Summit

Ben Klein shacklein at gmail.com
Mon Jun 1 21:03:46 CDT 2009


2009/6/2 Scott Ritchie <scott at open-vote.org>:
> First, I talked with a Pulseaudio expert about what we can do to make
> things work better.  He said that if we want good compatibility we will
> need our ALSA stack to use the Pulseaudio safe subset:
> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/guide-to-sound-apis.html. I've filed a
> metabug tracking this here:
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18740.  Use of this unsafe subset
> can cause most problems with stuttering or even complete dropoff.

As far as I know, this is not possible for Wine (without massive
latency issues caused by overbuffering in Wine itself) due to the fact
that Wine has to make DirectSound apps happy. It's also not very
consoling from this Pulseaudio expert that they don't seem to see a
problem with the ALSA layer on their end - "it's the apps that need to
be fixed". Wasn't the point of Pulse that you could use libasound/OSS
apps without modification? :)

> I'm not completely familiar with how sound works in Wine, but in the
> past I remember that one complaint about PulseAudio over ALSA was
> latency.  Latency issues these days are mostly due to bad kernel
> configurations

PulseAudio will *always* have more latency than ALSA. This has nothing
to do with kernel configurations, just that using a
CONFIG_NO_HZ/CONFIG_HZ_1000 (or whatever it is) kernel from the -rt
tree makes the latency issue less severe. New kernel won't fix Wine +
Pulse problem.

> Printing:
>
> A printing expert from http://openprinting.org says we should output
> .pdf files to cups rather than postscript. .pdf are becoming the
> standard for printers, and apparently they allow some good things that
> postscript does not.  I've filed a bug on this here:
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18741

Something tells me this isn't going to happen soon in Wine :D

> Security and Usability:
>
> The security team thinks we should finally start respecting the execute
> bit - this means removing all MIME handlers for executable code from the
> desktop and replacing them with a single front end for programs lacking
> the execute bit. This front end would notify the user of the problem,
> scan the file for viruses, and then present some information about the
> path towards execution.  It is still undecided whether the program
> should allow execution outright, however from a UI perspective this
> would clearly be more efficient.

This has been discussed before on -devel. I believe the consensus was
"no, we don't want Wine to respect execute bit" (though I'd still like
it to respect noexec mount option if possible).

The biggest problem with the GUI proposal for confirming execution of
non-+x files as far as I can see is how do we handle a win32 app
launching a non-+x app (as so many installers would be likely to do)?
Should that produce a new dialog (thus irritating the user to all
kinds of heck) or should one confirmation per user-controlled app
launch be enough (thus not providing any real benefit)?



More information about the wine-devel mailing list