September 2004 - Wine-Devel

Re: Re: Directx9
by brettholcomb＠charter.net Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

You're right - even MS can't do it - witness SP 2 for XP <G>. The important apps are core apps - Office, IE, etc., some of the more important apps like the big name games - Half Life <G>. However, it would be nice to know that if I'm running stable release xyz and I upgrade to stable xyz + 1 the apps it would run will still run or at least the chance of breakage is much much less than now. Right now if I run a release, then move to the next many things break. Things will always break to some extent but it seems to have gotten worse lately. I guess what really bothered me is the comment about breaking things and users would just have to live with it until it got fixed whenever. As I said, my objective is to move as much as I can off Windows and I have run wine-cvs and submitted some bugs and data to help debug the regression and I understand wine isn't ready for real use yet. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do a lot of that so I've essentially dropped Wine and f! igure I'll either wait until someday I can have a release that doesn't break too much between updates or stay with Windows. This is probably what many others have done, too. Don't get me wrong - the Wine team has a very difficult task and has done very well and been responsive but the let 'em use it broke or eat cake approach is not so good. It would help to have a list like you suggest. That would at least let me know that if I have app z which is not on the list and want to run it then it's my problem if the next release breaks. > > From: Lionel Ulmer <lionel.ulmer(a)free.fr> > Date: 2004/09/14 Tue PM 04:32:52 GMT > To: brettholcomb(a)charter.net > CC: wine-devel(a)winehq.com > Subject: Re: Re: Directx9 > > > To be honest, Wine isn't going to be very useful and adopted until > > there is something that a user can install and know that if I have to update > > to a current verson and I pick the stable version that my apps that are > > running will continue to run. > > Well, you perfectly summed up the 'tragedy' of Wine: nobody ever knows what > YOUR applications are... There are so many Win32 applications that Wine > might run one day and so many Win32 APIs and interactions between them that

1 0

Re: Correct ConvertSidToStringSidW with test
by Alexandre Julliard Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

Juan Lang <juan_lang(a)yahoo.com> writes: > ChangeLog: fix ConvertSidToStringSidW for all expected > values, and add tests The tests fail for me on XP SP1 (I added some debug output): security.c:85: Test failed: failed to parse sid string S-1-860116326 err 1337 security.c:85: Test failed: failed to parse sid string S-1-16909060 err 1337 security.c:87: Test failed: string sid didn't parse to expected value security.c:85: Test failed: failed to parse sid string S-1-66051 err 1337 security.c:87: Test failed: string sid didn't parse to expected value security.c:85: Test failed: failed to parse sid string S-1-258 err 1337 security.c:87: Test failed: string sid didn't parse to expected value security.c:85: Test failed: failed to parse sid string S-1-2 err 1337 -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: Re: Directx9
by brettholcomb＠charter.net Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

As a user watching this thread here's my comments - Mike is correct. I understand Wine is not to 1.0 yet (close at .9 <G>) but we need something that is stable and that we can run while development is done in the unstable branch. To be honest, Wine isn't going to be very useful and adopted until there is something that a user can install and know that if I have to update to a current verson and I pick the stable version that my apps that are running will continue to run. At one time Wine was like this but in the last year it's gotten so that things that work don't anymore. I have submitted bugs and done some regression testing but let's be honest - most don't have the skills, time or desire to do that but they want to move apps to Linux. If anyone wants to use Wine for serious work to run apps they need then they won't use Wine. Some may go to Crossover, others will just drop it and either go Windows for those systems or forget about Wine or it's derivatives. As a user comments about letting things break and that users just have to put up with ituntil they are eventually fixed scare me! Many projects have stable source that is intended for users and those who want to actually do something useful with the application and then they also have CVS which is for those who want to try out the latest, help fix bugs, etc. > > From: Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.QinetiQ.com> > Date: 2004/09/14 Tue PM 12:59:45 GMT > I don't think it's about features. It's more about buggyness, and having > popular apps work. Having a stabilisation period where only regression > fixes are allowed on a particular branch could help with that. > > > After all I don't think our Wine CVS is THAT broken/problematic (the > > test suite should help here, too! Why not improve that one for a change?), > > and if people want that extra bit of stability, then they're very > > well-advised to go with CXO (or do you want to deprive CodeWeavers > > of their well-earned money? ;-)). > > Hehe, of course not :) I'm not volunteering to do any of this, at least > not right now! If Jeremy wanted to push Wine 0.9/1.0 forward then yes > I'd be happy to work on it but right now I don't have the time, and what > time I do have all goes on bugfixes and stabilisation for CrossOver. > > Anyway. The fact that CrossOver is a successful product perhaps says > something about the value of stable releases. > > > Even just thinking of the extra 700MB compiled code on my HDD resulting from > > two branches worries me a bit. ;-) > > Nobody is saying you have to use it, I'm sure most kernel developers > don't have both 2.4 and 2.6 installed at once. > > > Not to mention that I believe that the kernel and KDE projects have a > > drastically larger developer audience than Wine, so they can easily afford > > having some people do the branch maintenance. > > No, it's just a matter of willpower. Even small projects can do > stable/unstable releases. Indeed, KDE basically is just a collection of > smaller projects. > > > So at this point in time I still think that doing stable/unstable branching > > would be the entirely wrong thing to do. > > What point in time would it be the right thing to do? > > For me, the right time is "whenever Jeremy says it is" :) But, with my > community hat on, it's something that should be addressed at some point.

2 1

Re: Add IconsDir entry to config
by Marcus Meissner Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:53:53AM -0400, Vincent Béron wrote: > Marcus patch for winemenubuilder has been commited, but for almost all > users the icons will end up in c:\windows\temp for a lack of an IconsDir > entry in config. I don't find that location suitable for long-term > storage of icons. > This is still not perfect as most new users don't use config anymore. wineshelllink will copy them out I guess, won't it? Ciao, Marcus

1 0

Re: MLANG: use Interlocked* in AddRef and Release
by Daniel Remenak Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:56:40 +0900, Mike McCormack <mike(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > > ChangeLog: > * use Interlocked* functions in AddRef and Release > <snip> > > static ULONG WINAPI fnIEnumCodePage_Release( > IEnumCodePage* iface) > { > ICOM_THIS_MULTI(EnumCodePage_impl, vtbl_IEnumCodePage, iface); > - ULONG ref = --This->ref; > + ULONG ref = InterlockedIncrement(&This->ref); operator-- changed to InterlockedIncrement instead of InterlockedDecrement. Is that intentional? --Daniel

1 0

Re: Wine and industrial communication like OPC
by Rickard Svensson Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

Hallo, sorry I didet awnser in a wile. Some discussion about the company at work on end license per system and so on. License issues isn't fun but ok I can tell you some more. Perhaps someone who knows more about license issues can contribute with something. Our company makes an embedded computer for general use, the first OS that it supported was Linux (an embedded minimum Debian about 10 mb + our app), which we have a customer that uses now. Now a colleague is working on a XP embedded version (is about 70 mb) Our company mostly works with Windows because most of our customers only use Windows. We don't sell any computers with Windows (we don't get bulk deals). We are mostly a software development company. The general industrial application we have made is good, most of our customers doesn't know that it is running Linux, and those who know likes it. But then the demand for OPC increased... In our case the cost of buying a OPC API for Linux perhaps could be economically reasonably, it depends on the amount of Linux computers with OPC we would sell. * 3000-4000$ / numbers of system * A fixed price for Windows licenses to be able to use the Win 98 DCom update. Win License prize * numbers of systems I am now doing some programming task and looking at our options. How does the API we can by from vendors to get OPC on Linux work and cost now. I found the DCom update for Win 98 (Se: http://www.microsoft.com/com/dcom/dcom98/download.asp?SD=GN&LN=SV&gssnb=1) The licens is bad: (Se: http://www.microsoft.com/com/dcom/dcom98/eula.asp) --- --- --- --- 1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This EULA grants you the following rights: * Software License. Microsoft grants you the right to make and use as many copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT as you have validly licensed copies of Microsoft® Windows® 98. You may also make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT for backup and archival purposes. * Distribution. You may not redistribute DCOM98. --- --- --- --- The solution that companies like ours that have an interest in OPC collaborates to make a DCom part for Linux through Wine like Mike Hearn and Michael Chang suggested is the one I would go for! But I have to convince my boss... How meny ours do you think it wood take to get DCom to work in Wine? 50 h / 100h / 500h / 1000h ? I'm the one who is mostly for Linux here, as I mentioned XP version is on the way, we have used QT to make or application. So it is easy to migrate and there is a definite risk that all will go towards a XP embedded variant :( From: Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.QinetiQ.com> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:14:50 +0100 To: Rickard Svensson <riq(a)mail.com> Subject: Re: Wine and industrial communication like OPC > > Yyyy! > > I hate license issues! > > I can see that for many people this wouldn't be an issue, because they probably have some old Win 98 CD/Licens somewhere (if they even care). > > But for a company that would like to send it as part of an embedded computer with Linux I can se a lot of problems. > > OK. I don't really know the details of licensing in embedded scenarios > but I can see it would cause problems. > > > But that was per development project, not per system we want to use OPC in. > > Ah, I see. Surely if you depend on Windows though you *already* have to > pay for Windows on a per-system basis? No? Or do you get bulk deals ... > > > That is good ;-) > > In the industry we are a lot of people who really question the total madness of letting the OPC standard be that depended on Windows, when it is supposed to be a "free" organization. > > > > My hope if I can get this to work is to publish a site on the net so all who want to use Linux in the industrial computing can do that quite easy... > > But then we have the license issues to :-( > > Yes. Unfortunately there are (as far as I know) only 4 DCOM > implementations in the world: > > 1) the one in Microsoft Windows > 2) DCOM for UNIX, which is based on Microsofts code > 3) Wines > 4) Cedegas (this is similar to Wines but more advanced, at least for > InstallShield support) > > The only one that is under a liberal license is Wines which is > incomplete. The only way to solve this problem is by having a > free-as-in-speech implementation of DCOM, which means extending and > improving Wine. > > > Ok, now I understand, and also why I got confused before. > > > > And there is a lot of work needed to make DCom to work in Wine? > > Is someone working on it or is it something that not is that important in other cases? > > Yes, it's a fair amount of work. Currently nobody is working on it as > their primary project - Rob Shearman and I did some work on it for > iTunes/InstallShield support lately and most of our code is motivated by > InstallShield. > > It is something that we want to do though, because we currently depend > on native DCOM for a lot of stuff, like installers/office embedding/etc > etc ... so there's interest there at least from CodeWeavers side. But > we're certainly not committed to anything. > > One possible plan is this: if it is true that there is general, > widespread concern over OPC depending on Windows in the industry, > perhaps you could get together with other companies and form a > consortium to fund the development of an LGPLd DCOM implementation in > Wine. This would allow you to write DCOM based software anywhere that > Wine runs and be independent of Microsoft and licensing costs. > > I think if funding was available in the right amounts Jeremy could be > persuaded to have CW at least put some hours into it and I know at least > one guy from ReactOS wants to work on it too. But I can't say for sure. > > Anyway, it was just a thought. > > thanks -mike -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

2 1

Re: resend: patch: shell32.dll - SHELL_ArgifyW expands env-vars
by Alexandre Julliard Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

"Jens Collin" <jens.collin(a)lakhei.com> writes: > + { > + TRACE("The env. var can't be found or is bigger than MAX_PATH => useless."); > + res += sprintfW(res, L"%s%%", tmpBuffer); You cannot use Unicode strings constants in Wine, they don't have the right size. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

5 6

Re: Rename keyword variable
by Alexandre Julliard Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

Andreas Mohr <andi(a)rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de> writes: > Hi, > > "template" is a keyword on c++, so better rename it to menu_template. We've been through this before; there's absolutely no reason to do that. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

2 1

Why is our OutputDebugString a server request?
by Shachar Shemesh Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

Hi all, It seems that OutputDebugString is defined in the Win32 API as a set of client side operations. In wine, however, it is a server request. I have not traced it into the server to see whether they carry out the same operations or not. However, even if they do, I am wondering why we need them? Wouldn't it be better to not do server side things that can be done client side? (http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/outputdebugstring.html) Shachar P.S. I perfectly understand that obtaining mutexes and waiting on events is a server side operation. However, it was my impression that such things are best carried out by mimicking the Win32 structure as much as possible. Isn't that the case? Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/

2 1

Re: Re: Why is our OutputDebugString a server request?
by Pouech Eric DMI AEI CAEN Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

> I get the feeling that I misunderstood what you just said. What is the > debug event? where do we do anything with it? debug events are part of the Win32 debug API. A debugger (ie a process using the client side of this API) will get "debug events" (basically the type of the event and some additional information). Such events are process created/terminated, thread created/terminated, thread stopped and so on. One of these "debug events" is the sending of a debug string (by the program being debugged). This means that running a "decent" debugger (decent meaning implementing the support for this debug event) will print all the OutputDebugString calls from the debuggee. A+

1 0