[Wine] Arguments for Wine on windows/incremental adoption

[James Mckenzie]

Deweirdifier wrote:
>
>
>> People already end up with QT installed and are not aware.  http://qt.nokia.com/qt-in-use/story/app/qt-in-use/target/desktop
>
>
>I don't think you get what i'm saying. All these applications that you mention, have to come bundled with there QT libraries. I'm
>saying, you install the full thing, so actual programs get much smaller at download. If you install 10 QT programs, you'll get the
>same stuff 10 over, each in the installation folder of the program. And most probably, its not the exact same version number, one
>may be 4.3.1 other 4.2.2. I'm saying that all prorammers should have the asurance, that they will find QT, vertion X, that will be
>upgraded only at date Y (Not when QT issues a new vertion), at standard location Z. For now QT is not a platform, its just a
>toolkit for writing programs.
>
But for Mac folks, you WILL have to include QT as it is not a standard install for that platform.  It may also not be so for other UNIXs.  This is something you have to keep this in mind when dealing with "users".  Some will install only those libraries needed to get up and running.  Otherwise, you make an assumption and users get upset.

> If you are utorrent, size matters a lot, its 300KB, but if it had to comme with the libs it uses, it would be several MBs.

And that is a problem, how?  I've downloaded programs that were several MBs in size from the Torrent.  Yes, it took time, but then again, the good part is that you can download and upload at the same time.  This unless you don't want to participate.  However, that becomes YOUR problem...
>
>
>> The most important thing here is we take a path that gives developers advantages by making there life simpler as well.
>
>
>Look, people ARE using windows API, there are reasons for this. If the problem is what i'm theorizing then we can fix it. I suspect
>that the problem is not technical per see, cool coding can't help that is. A really whant to here your input on this, and don't
>start with rants and fanboy stuff, people ARE using mickeysoft API, why? How to fix it?

Hmmm.  That sounds like a rant in itself.  I'm NOT here to fix the API, I am here to IMPLEMENT it, warts and all.  I am NOT here to build what MS built.  If I wanted that, I'd be at Best Buy getting a Dell Netbook with Windows 7.  I want to be able to run those programs that use the API on my preferred platform for programs that will NEVER exist for it.  This is the idea behind this project.  See, folks believe that if they programmers build only Windows versions of programs that Linux is somehow damaged.  Sorry, but that is NOT the truth.  This was the concept behind Java, and we all know how far that has gone.  It would be dead if it were not for SUN.  We need to build and implement the entire API for a specific, high use version of Windows.  Then programmers might see the value of building for Linux and move on.  That is the best sales technique I know of.  That is why there are several virualization programs for the Mac (VM Fusion is just one of them.)  


>
>
>> Of course the platform independant api solution has to be free of future legal problems.  Ie .net does not fit. 
>
>
>:) , i was thinking deployment of QT/GTK whatever, in the same maner as .net. With a lot of marketing.

Nope.  You are barking up the wrong tree.  Again, we have to support the entire API, including the .NET hooks.  Lots of marketing to whom?  Programmers?  They don't have the time to service a small and shrinking market or to learn the tricks of a new interface.  They will stick with the high use stuff.  I know of several .NET programmers that are learning Android interface programming because it is the up and coming new thing.  Ask them about QT/GTK and they laugh....
>
>> Remember opengl that is already a universal solution performs very well under wine due to pass throughs to native.  Compared to direct x that require emulation.
>> 
>> For games a push to provide an opengl engine would be beneficial to gamers using wine.
>
>
>Well, obviously, opengl is doing something wrong. I hear its hard to use for games
>
It's been around for a long time and several games WERE written to use OpenGL.  Just is, it is a moving target and the system does not fully support 3D graphics capabilities.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Candidates for mass deploiment: QT GTK Java Khronos Mono opengl SDL openal
>thats what? several 100s of MB combined?
>
Really.  QT/GTK and Java?  What do you plan on running this on?  Remember, folks are buying USD 300 netbooks that can barely run Linux, let alone any high power stuff.

>My proposal, you create a project, from wich you download a set of standard libraries. The vertions must stay fixed for some time,
>with only security fixes, other wise bugs will rec havoc with compatibility. A bit like a linux distribution, but more
>conservative, because a lot of software will be closed source. You create a foundation thing, with various promises about
>timetables.
>
Then sell this to the Linux distributions.  Try to sell it to Apple.  Then sit back and bask in your rejection letters.  YOU will have to sell this.  And your marketing URL is disgusting.  That is from someone who has been here for a while.

In the meantime, we will continue to work on Wine.  Have a nice life.

James McKenzie