Comments on: Why Ubuntu Should Embrace Wine

By: greg

greg — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:55:43 +0000

WINE should support up to Windows XP. That is a fixed target.

They don’t have to play catch up with Microsoft forever.

Right now, I don’t know of any (non-Microsoft) software that requires a version past Windows XP. Given that Vista was such a shit, why would any software maker do this?

If Ubuntu can run all WinXP compatible code, it can run basically all important applications made up to 2009, and probably well beyond. That would be a very powerful advantage.

I personally use one WinXP app in WINE (it’s a pdf reader/editor that lets you hightlight, markup, etc). If I couldn’t have used that passably, I wouldn’t have switched because there is no open source equivalent and I don’t have time to develop my own.

By: mocoloco

mocoloco — Tue, 19 May 2009 21:19:52 +0000

Shuttleworth himself said Wine has its place. Users should be made aware that it exists if no native app meets thier needs. Look at how Ubuntu handles codecs or the flash plug-in, or proprietary drivers. They’re easily visible but not set up by default, and attempts are made to let users know why they are somewhat of a “last resort” option, for the user’s own good.

By: aikiwolfie

aikiwolfie — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:37:22 +0000

playonlinux ran so badly on my system. I wouldn’t touch it again with a bargepole.

By: manny

manny — Mon, 11 May 2009 02:57:37 +0000

no, not wine directly

but a frontend with a list of working program/games like playonlinux or wine-doors

By: Ubuntu Look » Why Ubuntu Should Embrace Wine

Ubuntu Look » Why Ubuntu Should Embrace Wine — Sun, 10 May 2009 17:52:55 +0000

[...] Read more at Works With U [...]

By: F. Fellini

F. Fellini — Sun, 10 May 2009 10:11:41 +0000

I guess sometimes I have to stand on the shoulders of a giant to see a little further. I was looking at some of the documentation on the samba project and I was intrigued by something. There are a whole lot of people out there – project maintainers – that put a great deal of effort into project that help interoperability between systems like wine, samba, and so on. In spite of this effort the likes of Microsoft will maneuver changes to break their code or outright sabotage their efforts through all kinds of means in for the sake of Windows market share. Maybe its this uncertainty, combined with the fact (echoed by the samba team) that its a follower strategy that makes laying a foundation on wine risky business wise.
Microsoft is not making money in its non-core businesses, selling Xboxes and search, so it wants to protect its turf and it likely will not play nice to open source even when it could make office and IE for Linux. Wine, Samba, Mono, etc., are great projects that have the backing of individual users and developers but what happens when Microsoft begins to change things as usual setting project back into the dinosaur era.
The VFAT lawsuits are an indicator of how low Microsoft is willing to go. Next time they may roll an update to change the way SMB/CIFS or Windows UI libraries behave. Oh, darn they already did with Windows 7.
Wine is not a critical make or break feature. If left out there is a guarantee it will be installed by the user – at least I know I will even though I don’t even use it. Its always just in case I want to use free software utilities written for Windows. I can self support, but what about companies that now demand support, especially when their built for vista software breaks.

By: Christopher Tozzi

Christopher Tozzi — Sun, 10 May 2009 04:32:26 +0000

Ari: I stand corrected on Apple’s market share–the figure I used was based on the United States, not the world. The point I was trying to make, however, is still valid: attaining larger market share does not necessarily mean vendors will start porting their software to Linux. Apple controls a significant portion of the American market–currently the most lucrative in the world–yet many vendors, especially game developers, still ignore OS X.

As for twisting Shuttleworth’s words: I agree that he didn’t express any explicit animosity towards Wine. What he did imply, however, was that Wine’s role should be limited to temporarily filling the gaps in the Linux application lineup until more commercial vendors port their software to Linux. My argument is that, since realistically most commercial vendors don’t have the interest or the resources to port code to Linux, Ubuntu should instead work with proprietary developers to encourage them to build their applications against winelib, an easy way to ensure Linux compatibility without demanding much extra work on the part of developers. Shuttleworth doesn’t believe that Wine should be used for this purpose, which is where I disagree with him.

By: Ari Torhamo

Ari Torhamo — Sun, 10 May 2009 01:39:05 +0000

It seems to me that the poster is trying to make Mark’s not-anti-Wine-comment to look anti-Wine. Some excerpts from the post:

“It [Ubuntu] should not be reluctant to work with developers who want to make their products available on Ubuntu via Wine.”

“Dismissing Wine as a distraction from the ultimate objective of a 100% free and open-source computing experience is radical and unrealistic.”

“…it should not close its doors on Wine and winelib…”

When I compare these comments to what Mark said, it seems like the poster isn’t commenting Mark’s words at all. In his comment Mark didn’t say one word against Wine, but emphasized the strengths that Ubuntu needs to thrive on. On the other hand, he did say this about Wine:
“[Wine and native Linux ports] both play an important role [in the success of Ubuntu]“.

I don’t like when people’s words or thoughts are twisted. In this post, the latter seems to be done. It’s as if the writer is trying to protect something he sees as important, Wine, by making a false or exaggerated alarm. That kind of manipulation of discussion and thoughts of readership is all too common nowadays.

By: Ari Torhamo

Ari Torhamo — Sun, 10 May 2009 00:15:28 +0000

Apple doesn’t have even nearly a 10% share of the desktop market. It may have this share where it’s most successful in, the USA, but for the whole world I’d guess the right figure is around 3-4%.

By: Another day in development… » This just in: The WINE flu has infected on a global scale

Sat, 09 May 2009 12:06:38 +0000

[...] in response to Canonical’s support of WINE and Microsoft Windows compatability). The community response to Shuttleworth’s comments were of mixed results. I must admit, that I agree with [...]

By: Vanity Vertigo

Vanity Vertigo — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:49:32 +0000

“sudo apt-get install wine” and problem solved. There really is no reason to include WINE in the default install. Too many people see Ubuntu as a Windows replacement when it’s nothing of the sort. Ubuntu is Linux plain and simple. And if a user wants to run Windows applications inside of Linux and not pretend that Ubuntu is Windows then he or she is free to do so.

By: aikiwolfie

aikiwolfie — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:53:22 +0000

Wine is the lazy option to solving the Linux software availability problem.

Canonical could make more of an effort towards developing the applications businesses and consumers need to make Linux a viable option. We need to find a way of funding the work that needs to be done instead of looking for stopgap measures.

When there is money to be made, the software houses will start paying attention. If we simply opt for Wine, the software houses will code to the lowest common denominator and the quality of software will diminish.

To get the applications we want we need to fund their development. Remember free software means free to view and edit the source code. It doesn’t and never was really meant to mean free as in beer.

In case anybody missed my point. Funding software development is the answer!