Open source projects tend to go through spurts of development. Constant, steady development seems to be the exception rather than the norm. This is partly driven by developers who themselves do some significant work very quickly. One such developer with Wine is Dimi Paun. He's been involved with Wine for a long time, but recently submitted some signicant enhancements to several different areas.
Born in Bucharest, Romania in 1974, Dimi started hacking on a Sinclair Spectrum clone called HC85 in grade 9. In 1992 he moved to Toronto, Canada. He earned a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Comp. Sci. at the University of Toronto Now he's working as an independent contractor for clients such as GM and financial institutions.
BV: How did you get involved with Wine?
Dimi: When I switched over to Linux, I was looking for a Windows Explorer replacement. It's hard to even imagine it right now, but as a Windows user, I could not conceive life without Explorer. Somehow I've stumbled across Wine on the net, and tried to get it to run for curiosity's sake. I would have liked to be able to run some Windows apps (Excel comes to mind), but I didn't really depend on them. The project simply looked interesting, so I started to poke around.
BV: Do you remember the first patch you submitted?
Dimi: Not really. But one of my first efforts was to rewrite the debugging layer. The old one was such a mess, that I simply had to do something about it! Once again, I had no need for it, as at the time I wasn't developing or debugging anything Wine related, but the task seemed interesting, and it didn't require deep internal Wine knowledge. I guess the proverbial itch for me was the excitement to work on such a fascinating project.
BV: You've been involved with Wine for a while, but recently you been extremely active (and that's probably putting it mildly). Any particular reason why?
Dimi: Partly because I managed to get more free time, but mainly because I developed an unhealthy obsession with it. In fact, my involvement with the project has always had an uneven pattern, simply because my Wine-related work quickly turns into an addiction: I don't sleep, I don't eat, I don't work, all I can do or think it's Wine. Obviously, after a few months I'm burned out, and in real bad shape, so I have to stop for a while.
BV: Before this recent activity, what was the most significant contribution you made to Wine?
Dimi: Probably the debugging layer, and common control work. To be honest, I don't keep track and I forget. Back in 2002 at Wineconf I was shocked when Alexandre said that I've been involved with the project for 7 years. Seven years! Time flies when you're having fun I guess, but it really got me by surprise.
BV: Speaking of Wineconf, was that the first time you've met anyone else involved? Who was the most interesting person you met?
Dimi: Yes, it was actually. It was a great conference, and I enjoyed it immensely. I certainly hope we have another one soon. As for the most interesting person, I don't know, I've never thought about it this way. But I can tell you that virtually everyone was very different from my mental picture, which made the entire thing so much more interesting.
BV: Would you consider the listview changes the most significant work you've done? What issues were involved with that?
Dimi: Yes, I'd say so. Issues? Where do I start? :) The problem with it is that it's the most complex control. By far. When I started my latest work on it (I actually did work on it some time ago), the file was over 10,000 lines. And this does not include any of the features introduced by XP (tiles, group, workareas). I've put a ridiculous amount of time into it, starting from a working version! And yet, we don't even have all the pre-XP features done! It would probably cost over $300,000USD to develop at market rates such a control with all the XP features. It's crazy.
BV: So basically a small team of developers and about a year. That really puts the level of development in perspective! Microsoft's "common" controls seem quite different between versions of their operating systems. Is it hard trying to find a baseline to build upon?
Dimi: No, I had no problem with that. Microsoft is fairly good at maintaining backwards compatibility, so it's just a matter of keeping up with the features they are adding. It is also true that the documentation is incomplete or sometimes incorrect, and some of the undocumented semantics are rather surprising. However, the fundamental problem is that we don't have enough resources to implement the necessary functionality. Quite frankly, the existing documentation is good enough, we are simply lacking manpower.
BV: Now you've moved on to getting Windows' based programs to compile with Winelib. What are the main issues you've run into?
Dimi: We do offer Winelib, why is it such a pain to use? Winelib is here to stay, it should be easy and pleasant to use.
Our previous Winelib processes was very complicated, and different from current norm. To make matters worse, going from Windows to Linux involved a cataclysmic change: the compiler changed, the build process changed, the OS changed. Each of these are big and stressful changes in themselves, imagine the mess you have to deal with when all of them happen simultaneously.
Enter MinGW. This toolchain allows you to isolate these changes, and test them separately. An ideal situation! First you change the compiler and build process, but you keep everything else constant. People don't have to learn 1000 things at once, but rather they first focus on building their application with a different compiler, and a Makefile-based build process. It may not be as convenient as MSVC, but most developers can deal with that. You can work out the minor compiler incompatibilities, fix the build process, and thouroughly test your changes. Once this step is complete, you just change the OS, and everthing else remains virtually unchanged. This is the promise of the new tools.
BV: Any luck with Mozilla?
Dimi: I haven't had much time to work on it. Unfortunately, Mozilla Win32 requires MSVC to build. There's no point in trying a Wine port unless Mozilla gets ported to the MinGW toolchain. There is an effort under way (Bug #134113 ), and most of the work has been integrated in the official tree. There were some problems with windres (the MinGW resource compiler), and I've helped out with those to get this done and over with.
BV: That's right. I remember a post on that a few weeks ago. On a related note, how have the new Winelib tools you've been working on helped with porting applications?
Dimi: Porting is significantly simpler now. It's all about incremental development. The only reason I've started porting apps over to Winelib in the first place was to experience the pain inflicted on us by the porting process, and to try to remove it. I have posted the patches required to port a number of projects (such as PuTTY, wxWindows, VisualMinGW) to Winelib using the new tools to show how small and unintrusive they are. I am personally pleased with the results so far, but there is still plenty of work left to do.
BV: On your to-do list you have yourself mostly working on some toolchain items. Most of which already seem complete. Are there any major tasks you're planning on taking on?
Dimi: As soon as I finish the Winelib work, I plan on returning to the common controls maintenance. A lot of them are still in need of love (treeview, listview, etc.). In general, I will be focusing on the UI side of things: standard controls, common controls, common dialogs. There is an obscene amount of work left to do in this area, I hope others will join my crusade.
BV: What do you see as the biggest stumbling block preventing Wine from reaching a "1.0" release?
Dimi: A flawless UI (of course, apart from the items listed on the 0.9 TODO). This may sound strange from a vim guy like myself, but I think this will be the toughest nut to crack.
BV: Do you think the ability to run with the native MS controls hinders Wine at all? It almost seems too easy to just copy a Microsoft DLL from a Windows installation and use it to make an app work. Has it caused that area to languish at all?
Dimi: It's hard to say. Sometimes it's very important to be able to test stuff against the real thing. The ability to mix and match native DLLs with builtin DLLs has greatly helped the project overall. And if we've missed a few bugfixes because we've made it easy for people to be lazy, so be it -- it's a small price to pay for all the other good things we get out of it.
BV: So why is the TODO list the way it is? One topic that comes up is the ability for Wine to run a small set of apps flawlessly. How come you don't have any items on the list like "Make Word run perfectly" ? And then just have a list pertaining to that?
Dimi: I might as well explain my motivation. You see, history has shown, time and again, that getting the interfaces (and I use the term very loosly here) right is the key to success. Microsoft noticed that the ultimate interface is the one with the user, and they refined that one better than anyone else. And surprise, surprise, they hit the jackpot.
There is a very simple, intuitive explanation for why this works. It's just simple math: you optimize where it matters. 90% of the users care how they interact with the machine, not how you program the serial card.
I'm approaching the 0.9 goal from this perspective. What is user visible? What are the interfaces visible to the user? Let's see:
- The site, WineHQ.org
- The tools (winebuild, wrc, etc.)
- The file formats (.spec, .reg)
- The usage patterns/process/workflow for using wine, winelib, etc.
- The exported API
- The windowing code, drawing code, UI controls
- The wine's source code tree structure
If you look closely, you'll see that virtually all my work revolves around some of these issues. Having actual apps run under Wine is important, but at this stage in the game, it's secondary to these problems. Once we get the interfaces right, we can fix all the bugs we want without having to bother the vast majority of the population who just wants to use Wine. I believe this is the path to the heart and mind of the user.
I think we should get 1-4 stabilized for 0.9. In particular (4) is easy to miss, but very important, as people are loath to change. This is why I've focused on fixing the way we interact with winelib.
(5) is of course the completion of the DLL separation, which is already slated for 1.0. (6) is something that haven't been discussed, but I think it's paramount. Today, I don't think users accept visual glitches. I can argue why on several pages, but I hope it's self evident. However, having a perfect UI is hard, and we'd be lucky to have it done by 1.0, so I did not included in the 0.9 TODO (BTW, this is the motivation for my work on the common controls).
One thing that hasn't been discussed before it's (7). It refers to the fact that we carry a lot of baggage in our tree, in terms of organization, which makes the source so much harder to follow. After all these years, I still find it confusing, and annoying. I would like to see this fixed before 0.9, because I think it simply scares potential developers away, and inflicts unneeded pain on the ones that stay.
BV: You recently submitted a patch adding a Wine configuration tool based on work by Jaco Greef. It's definitely a sorely lacking application, but how much work remains in order to make it usable?
Dimi: It depends on your point of view. Relative to the application, there is quite a bit of work to do, as the current winecfg code is just a skeleton. However, in absolute terms I don't think it's that much work to get something useful. This is an important project, and anyone with a bit of Win32 and C experience can contribute. An excellent opportunity to get started with Wine development.
BV: One thing that's always annoyed me with Microsoft's configuration tools is they're basically a special tool for manipulating the registry. However, there's a ton of options that require manually running regedit and making changes. Will Wine eventually suffer from the same problem? Is it feasible to move all the configuration into the registry? Or is this simply a matter of making a better registry editor?
Dimi: I don't really know, and it's something we have to do, so I guess it's not worth worrying about it. We do have an ASCII format for storing the registry, which is good as you can always use your favorite editor to modify the settings. I'm not sure what else we can do beyond that, other than provide user friendly tools (and that would be winecfg, of course).
BV: You mentioned carrying baggage around in Wine tree.. does this affect other projects? Recently the mplayer and Mono folks have taken chunks of Wine and reworked them to provide integration in their own projects. Does this show Wine is somehow lacking something since they couldn't directly use it? Or is this just the power of open source development at work, namely adapting others' work to fit into your own?
Dimi: I was mainly referring to organizational baggage. The mplayer and Mono examples show a different problem, namely that Wine is not easily usable as a library in the classical Unix sense. Ideally, a Unix program should be able to use Wine and call DLLs by simply specifying -lwine at link time. That is currently not possible. One has to transform the Unix app into a Winelib/Windows app in order to do that, which is very unintuitive to say the least. Nobody in their right mind would go to the trouble of taking chunks of Wine as these projects are forced to do now, for obvious reasons. So yes, this clearly shows a shortcoming on Wine's part, but fixing it is not a top priority right now. For sure a post 0.9 task.
BV: After the listview work you went on vacation, did you get any fresh powder skiing in St. Anton?
Dimi: Oh yeah -- 3 days!
BV: What's your favorite place to ski?
Dimi: Maybe Tignes. I've had lots of fun in St. Anton, so it's hard to tell. In fact, I had *lots* more fun in St. Anton, it's just that the weather was better in Tignes, and the mountains were better connected. You can't go wrong either way. :)
BV: Thanks for the interview!