30 Jun
2006
30 Jun
'06
4:52 a.m.
Gee sounds like a "great" idea. We all
waiting too see some patches...
It sure would be cool to have:
- Multiuser Wine
- Wine stable enough to run as service (err hmm whatever the hell
that means...
ah you mean daemon ?)
- Run something more complicated then 'printf("hello world\n");'
without X
- Talk to WMs to show icons and ask questions.
Chris if you think that autostart is such a great idea - you are
very welcome to
start sending patches in. And if they are reasonable enough they
might get in.
But if you want to rant about that Linux doesn't have some
absolutely required
"feature" that windows has - this not the right place.
Vitaliy
Um hold on a second. Clearly many developers have different ideas
about what's reasonable. It makes sense to obtain a semblance of
unanimity and mutual understanding before taking action. You
shouldn't go around quashing discussions like that.
Will
30 Jun
30 Jun
5:08 a.m.
New subject: wine autorun utility
On Friday 30 June 2006 14:52, William Knop wrote:
Um hold on a second. Clearly many developers have
different ideas
about what's reasonable.
Actually I don't think that's true. As far as I can see all of the
*developers* participating in this thread agreed that autorun (1) is a bad
idea and should not be implemented, and (2) is on the other side of the
demarcation line between Wine and the desktop environment.
I would be surprised if any significant number of developers disagreed with
these two points. As for the first, it reflects the difference between
Windows' security model and the Unix/Linux security model (the difference
being that the latter systems actually have a model deserving of the
label "security"). As for the second, an end user may well not understand the
distinction between Wine's role and that of the desktop environment, but a
developer should. Wine is for making Windows applications (and native
applications coded to the Windows API) run - I am not aware of any developer
who thinks it should be a complete reimplementation of Windows.
--
Troy Rollo - wine(a)troy.rollo.name
5:47 a.m.
New subject: wine autorun utility
On Jun 30, 2006, at 1:08 AM, Troy Rollo wrote:
On Friday 30 June 2006 14:52, William Knop wrote:
1) While I agree maintaining a staunch security policy is important,
that has nothing to do with autorun. Making the user browse to find
an executable is not security.
2) The line you refer to I believe would put detecting media inserts
on the desktop environment side, and the parsing and execution of
windows autorun inf files on the wine side. Hell, the user would have
to run `wine --media-autorun /mountpoint/autorun.inf`. That has to be
as secure as the user running `cd /mountpoint/somedir; wine ./some.exe`.
Will
Um hold on a second. Clearly many developers have
different ideas
about what's reasonable.
Actually I don't think that's true. As far as I can see all of the
*developers* participating in this thread agreed that autorun (1)
is a bad
idea and should not be implemented, and (2) is on the other side of
the
demarcation line between Wine and the desktop environment.
I would be surprised if any significant number of developers
disagreed with
these two points. As for the first, it reflects the difference between
Windows' security model and the Unix/Linux security model (the
difference
being that the latter systems actually have a model deserving of the
label "security"). As for the second, an end user may well not
understand the
distinction between Wine's role and that of the desktop
environment, but a
developer should. Wine is for making Windows applications (and native
applications coded to the Windows API) run - I am not aware of any
developer
who thinks it should be a complete reimplementation of Windows. 
6:01 a.m.
New subject: wine autorun utility
On 6/30/06, William Knop <william.knop(a)gmail.com> wrote:
1) While I agree maintaining a staunch security policy
is important,
that has nothing to do with autorun. Making the user browse to find
an executable is not security.
Yet again... when a user sticks an audio CD in his computer and gets
a rootkit because of autorun, that's _b_a_d_
That user isn't going to browse out to the rootkit and install it him/her self.
--tim
6:17 a.m.
New subject: wine autorun utility
On Jun 30, 2006, at 2:01 AM, Tim Schmidt wrote:
On 6/30/06, William Knop
<william.knop(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, then in that situation the user wouldn't run `wine --media-
autorun /mountpoint/autorun.inf` either. I fail to see your point.
Will
1) While I agree maintaining a staunch security
policy is important,
that has nothing to do with autorun. Making the user browse to find
an executable is not security.
Yet again... when a user sticks an audio CD in his computer and gets
a rootkit because of autorun, that's _b_a_d_
That user isn't going to browse out to the rootkit and install it
him/her self.
6:27 a.m.
New subject: wine autorun utility
On 6/30/06, William Knop <william.knop(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, then in that situation the user wouldn't run
`wine --media-
autorun /mountpoint/autorun.inf` either. I fail to see your point.
Hey... If all you want to do is write a parser for autorun.inf files
and attach it to a command line switch, that sounds pretty easy.
Where's the patch?
That said, as others have mentioned, KDE and Gnome already have
similar functionality. No reason the parser can't go there (where,
perhaps, people might be a little less hostile to the idea?)
--tim
8:04 a.m.
New subject: wine autorun utility
Forgive my lazyness and my bad english, but IMHO most of discussion
resembles MS Corporation behaviour by trying to decide what is good for a
user, and what is not. Hey, just let the user or his admin to decide
this.
IMO there should be just one checkbox in winecfg that rules
autorunability.
* On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Tim Schmidt wrote:
KDE and Gnome already have similar functionality. No
reason the parser
can't go there (where, perhaps, people might be a little less hostile to
the idea?)
Right, but then it still should be nice to find a way for Wine to know if
KDE/Gnome is set to autorun win32 apps. And a way to toggle this
KDE/Gnome setting. This way could let user/admin to manage autorunability
from winecfg by clicking mentioned checkbox.
Otherwise user/admin would complain about Wine inability to integrate with
the rest of a graphical system :-/
And of course, the autorunability should be disabled by default when
graphical environment knows/says nothing about autoruns. Just likes all
my neighbouring win-admins do for their customized/unattended XP setups.
<g>
Hm, someone should show this thread to KDE/Gnome/FreeDesktop folks, IMHO.
I am off this task ;)
6:18 a.m.
New subject: wine autorun utility
On Friday 30 June 2006 15:47, William Knop wrote:
2) The line you refer to I believe would put detecting
media inserts
on the desktop environment side, and the parsing and execution of
windows autorun inf files on the wine side.
This is not true. The existing action-on-CD-insertion programs provided by the
desktop environment try to detect the contents of the CD to see what they
should do, so they will be looking for the autorun.inf file. Additionally the
autorun.inf file format is designed to include specifications of different
commands for multiple environments, so if autorun.inf files are to be
respected at all it makes sense that they should also be able to start a
native Linux executable or shell script (discovered from an
[autorun.linux.i386] section, for example).
There is nothing in this that requires or enhances the Win32 API facilities
that Wine seeks to provide. Only once the native Windows executable has been
identified as the only (or best) target for autorun would Wine become
involved, when the program in the desktop environment invoked Wine to run the
executable.
--
Troy Rollo - wine(a)troy.rollo.name
6531
days inactive
6531
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Saulius Krasuckas -
Tim Schmidt -
Troy Rollo -
William Knop