March 2006 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: OT: General behaviour of the community (from 'Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all')

by Tom Spear

On 3/29/06, Chris Morgan <chmorgan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm pretty sure people are capable of filtering their own email. > Afaict the offending emails were between two individuals. You may not > like them but that has no bearing on whether they should be allowed to > post to the mailing list given that those emails to the mailing list > are appropriate. > > Chris Be that as it may, the person who made those comments made them as a direct attack on someone who posted to the list. Regardless of whether or not the insults were posted to the list, he shouldn't have made them. As the person who reported the incident said, had it been a new developer interested in helping wine (either directly by contributing code to the project, or indirectly by writing a support app), he probably would have said screw this, I'm not going to help out a project that has developers who verbally attack me. I know I would have. Sure we all have to deal with someone who is annoyed at a stupid comment or question every now and then, but those were not stupid (not in my opinion), and had some very valid points. If the "attacker" had done some research instead of spouting off because he was tired of users complaining about something not working and it turning out to be because of winetools, we wouldnt be having this convo. With all of that being said and trying to get back on topic, sure winetools breaks a lot of things, but from what I can see, it also gets a lot of things working. If we have better documentation and if (here is the key) the users took the time to read thru all of the docs, which I admittedly don't, there wouldnt be any need for winetools. Honestly, I think that winetools should have been (from the beginning) something that creates a second installation of wine, from source, and that plays with registry files outside of the main wine install. IOW a user who uses wine doors should have a directory structure like this / -wine-source --all the uncompiled and unlinked files -wine --all the binaries and dll's, etc for a proper wine install (including wineprefixcreate, the wine executable, etc) -~/.wine --all the files outside of binaries -wine-doors --all the binaries and dll's etc for a proper wine install (like wine-doors instead of wine, and wineprefixcreate-doors, etc) -~/.wine-doors --all the files outside of binaries modified to work with different apps Then a user can run ./wine-tools and it will present them a prompt saying "Detecting app to be run... Internet Explorer" "Merging changes to wine registry to allow running of internet explorer" "Changes Merged" "Running Internet Explorer" Then boom.. Up pops IE.. That is what winetools should have done. But since it doesn't, we are working on wine doors. A much more user friendly wine tool that will have more features. Of course, I'm not sure how it's going to look, and since I don't speak fluently in C, I won't be contributing, but hopefully it will be better than winetools without all of the problems of winetools... Tom,

March 29, 2006

Re: Direct3D, the kernel and ReactOS

by H. Verbeet

On 29/03/06, Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger(a)gmx.at> wrote: > I know that this is not easy to achieve. The kernel interface is poorly > documented, and Greatlord has spent a lot of effort to verify the docs and to > write a better documentation of the interface. Apps using the kernel > interface should be considered broken, and I don't give them a long lifetime > as the interface changes from Windows version to Windows version(According to > Microsoft, Greatlord says it didn't change since NT(2K?) ). Should we go this > way and implement the kernel Direct3D interface? If so, I consider this > something post-1.0, and we should definitely see what changes Vista brings. Personally, unless it really becomes an issue, I'd rather not. It think it's hard enough to figure out what a particular d3d call is supposed to do as it is.

March 29, 2006

Re: OT: General behaviour of the community (from 'Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all')

by Chris Morgan

I'm pretty sure people are capable of filtering their own email. Afaict the offending emails were between two individuals. You may not like them but that has no bearing on whether they should be allowed to post to the mailing list given that those emails to the mailing list are appropriate. Chris On 3/29/06, Tom Spear <speeddymon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Totally agreed. Segin needs to be not just kick/banned from the list, he > needs to be K-Lined, if not G-Lined from all things wine! With respect to > his comments though, on behalf of everyone involved with the project, and > with the community as a whole, I sincerely apologize. > > Tom > > > On 3/29/06, Jason Green <jave27(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3/29/06, Dr J A Gow <J.A.Gow(a)furrybubble.co.uk> wrote: > > > I was interested to read several comments on this list in respect of > such > > > comments as 'IQ of zero'. Such comments were the final straw in leading > me to > > > take this action. > > > > Thank you. It sometimes takes a thick skin to ignore the petty and > > childish rants that are prevalent online. Anonymity (or > > pseudo-anonymity in this case) often leads to childishness, and has > > done so since the beginnings of the Net. It gives the impression to > > potential new users and developers that the "community" is hostile and > > unwelcoming. I experienced a little bit of myself when asking my > > first couple of [naive] questions in IRC at #winehq. > > > > While it's completely understandable that people will get tired of > > seeing the same questions posted over and over again, there's no need > > to get hostile about it unless the user asking the questions gets > > hostile or demanding themselves (and even then, restraint or kick/ban > > would be preferable). If someone asks a "stupid question" (entirely > > subjective, remember), just ignore it or point to a place where they > > can learn the answer themselves. Please don't be a jerk. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > >

March 29, 2006

Re: OT: General behaviour of the community (from 'Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all')

by Tom Spear

Totally agreed. Segin needs to be not just kick/banned from the list, he needs to be K-Lined, if not G-Lined from all things wine! With respect to his comments though, on behalf of everyone involved with the project, and with the community as a whole, I sincerely apologize. Tom On 3/29/06, Jason Green <jave27(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3/29/06, Dr J A Gow <J.A.Gow(a)furrybubble.co.uk> wrote: > > I was interested to read several comments on this list in respect of > such > > comments as 'IQ of zero'. Such comments were the final straw in leading > me to > > take this action. > > Thank you. It sometimes takes a thick skin to ignore the petty and > childish rants that are prevalent online. Anonymity (or > pseudo-anonymity in this case) often leads to childishness, and has > done so since the beginnings of the Net. It gives the impression to > potential new users and developers that the "community" is hostile and > unwelcoming. I experienced a little bit of myself when asking my > first couple of [naive] questions in IRC at #winehq. > > While it's completely understandable that people will get tired of > seeing the same questions posted over and over again, there's no need > to get hostile about it unless the user asking the questions gets > hostile or demanding themselves (and even then, restraint or kick/ban > would be preferable). If someone asks a "stupid question" (entirely > subjective, remember), just ignore it or point to a place where they > can learn the answer themselves. Please don't be a jerk. > > Thanks. > > >

March 29, 2006

getwinegit.sh 0.31 released!

by Christian Lachner

OK, I'm tired now but this is a new release an it owns ;). It should be quite stable but I didn't test it. So what has changed: 0.31 One more Release, I'm glad about this one - Some smaller an greater Fixes - After Compiling, the Script creates a helperfile to help mode 4 - Sections in Logfile - Trap included to handle ctrl+c - Implemented a small sleeper to give you a chance to stop the script before it starts to clean the source This is one of the last versions. The last version will be called 1.0. (maybe the next one?) If you miss a feature... write to the mailinglist.

March 29, 2006

Direct3D, the kernel and ReactOS

by Stefan Dösinger

Hello List, I had a talk to the DirectX developers of reactos on their irc channel to discuss how Reactos and Wine can share efforts on DirectX. (Please leave the legal issues asside for now, let us concentrate on the technical part for now). I didn't expect much possibility for a cooperation in such a hw-related thing as DirextX, but Greatlord told me about the gdi / win32k problem Wine is heading to with the current DirectX code. According to Greatlord, Microsoft's DirectX implementation basically consists of a kernel-side part in gdi.dll and win32k.sys, and a user-mode part in ddraw.dll, d3d8.dll and d3d9.dll. The user dlls contain the Hardware emulation layer code, and calls to the kernel for the Hardware abstraction layer. Now that wouldn't be a problem for Wine, as applications are expected to use the user mode dlls, and using the kernel interface is highly discouraged by Microsoft. However, there are a few apps out there which access the kernel interface directly, and Greatlord told me that he knew about a few companies which plan to use it to gain speed improvement. Expectedly, such apps won't work on Wine. My long term suggestion is to move the Direct3D->OpenGL translation code from WineD3D to gdi and a win32k sys, and write ddraw.dll, d3d8.dll and d3d9.dll to use that interface. The user mode dlls can be shared with Reactos, and from a technical point of view, even Microsoft's DirectX dlls can be used on Wine(including the hardware emulation layer). I know that this is not easy to achieve. The kernel interface is poorly documented, and Greatlord has spent a lot of effort to verify the docs and to write a better documentation of the interface. Apps using the kernel interface should be considered broken, and I don't give them a long lifetime as the interface changes from Windows version to Windows version(According to Microsoft, Greatlord says it didn't change since NT(2K?) ). Should we go this way and implement the kernel Direct3D interface? If so, I consider this something post-1.0, and we should definitely see what changes Vista brings. Another thing we discussed was DirectInput. ReactOS uses wines dinput.dll, with improvements which gets the sdk demos and some nasty games working. I can see if I can merge the changes to Wine.

March 29, 2006

Re: OT: General behaviour of the community (from 'Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all')

by Jason Green

On 3/29/06, Dr J A Gow <J.A.Gow(a)furrybubble.co.uk> wrote: > I was interested to read several comments on this list in respect of such > comments as 'IQ of zero'. Such comments were the final straw in leading me to > take this action. Thank you. It sometimes takes a thick skin to ignore the petty and childish rants that are prevalent online. Anonymity (or pseudo-anonymity in this case) often leads to childishness, and has done so since the beginnings of the Net. It gives the impression to potential new users and developers that the "community" is hostile and unwelcoming. I experienced a little bit of myself when asking my first couple of [naive] questions in IRC at #winehq. While it's completely understandable that people will get tired of seeing the same questions posted over and over again, there's no need to get hostile about it unless the user asking the questions gets hostile or demanding themselves (and even then, restraint or kick/ban would be preferable). If someone asks a "stupid question" (entirely subjective, remember), just ignore it or point to a place where they can learn the answer themselves. Please don't be a jerk. Thanks.

March 29, 2006

OT: General behaviour of the community (from 'Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all')

by Dr J A Gow

I was interested to read several comments on this list in respect of such comments as 'IQ of zero'. Such comments were the final straw in leading me to take this action. A few days ago I sent a comment to the list. Nothing really sinister, just an observation and an experience. Before long I had a particularly vicious and vile diatribe sent in reply to my comment - to my private email address. I have appended the lower headers and the bulk of the message I received at the end of this message (trimming the html from the bottom). I thought long and hard before taking this action. It is not something I would normally do, but in this instance I was so incensed at this individual's behaviour that I felt that 'naming and shaming' was the only way forward. Not even so much as to the fact that he directed his comments to me, but more the fact that had I been a new prospective developer, the effect such diatribe would have would not in any way be positive. It certainly would taint their perception of the open-source community. Furthermore I sincerely doubt that I am the only one to experience this behaviour. Others may just suffer in silence. I have worked with many smaller community projects, on OS/2 and latterly on Linux, and never been subjected to this kind of abuse from members of the community. I joined this list because I felt that there was something I could contribute to Wine, and in the instance it turned out that there was. I did not join it to receive unsolicited email of an abusive nature from members of the community. Had he done this by telephone I could have had him prosecuted, at least in the UK. But he hides behind a gmail.com address and makes comments I seriously suspect he would not have the balls to say to my face. No, I do not believe that we need a 'net police force'. Common decency between individuals, however, is essential. Diversity, discussion, criticism, expression, even annoyance are all valuable when driving a project forward. Blatant personal abuse is not tolerable. It is not tolerable in society, it should not be tolerated in the developer community. The community needs to police itself, rather than be policed, and individuals who bring the community into disrepute need to be dealt with by the community. That is why I bring this into the open. How to prevent such actions? I do not think it that this is possible in its entirety. I can (and have) simply add this individual's address to my blocked list. However, I may have been a newcomer to open-source development who would not have been so tolerant, and whose opinions of the community may have been changed by this action. May I suggest that whoever is responsible for the hosting of the mailing list change the configuration so that email addresses are not placed in the header? (I am no expert on mailing-list software but it does not immediately seem to be impractical.) That way all replies have to go to the list and this would prevent such unsolicited email being sent. This is my last word on this matter. Make of it what you will. I refuse to be prevented from contributing to vital projects such as Wine when I can by the antics of some depraved individual. It has left a sour taste in my mouth though, and like it or not, it does not portray Wine developers in a good light. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disposition-Notification-To: Segin <segin2005(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 15:01:11 -0500 From: Segin <segin2005(a)gmail.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051202) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dr J A Gow <J.A.Gow(a)furrybubble.co.uk> Subject: Re: Winetools -> wine doors References: <1143192770.25116.22.camel(a)despair.kent-music.com> <442441D7.7020107(a)furrybubble.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <442441D7.7020107(a)furrybubble.co.uk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010900050103010506060607" X-BV-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Envelope-From: segin2005(a)gmail.com X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010900050103010506060607 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dr J A Gow wrote: > >> I've looked through the winetools code and it is a clusterf*ck of >> nonsense. It appears to be in the final stages of code rot, however > > > This "clusterf*ck of nonsense" helped me to get a microcontroller > development suite running under Wine, which otherwise would not install You're a fucking retard, RTFM! You'd learn you need to use DLLOverrides in Winecfg. > natively. After over ten years designing and developing embedded systems, > there is one thing that stands out. That you're a dumbfuck? > Code that is 'nonsense' does not work > at all. That's 100% definitive of Winetools. > Code that works may not be elegant, it may not be pretty and > you may hate the style, but it _works_ Nope, wine doesn't do ~/.wine/config, which makes winetools COMPLETELY useless. **WINETOOLS DOES NOT DO A DAMN REDEEMING THING FOR WINE USERS THAT ARE UP TO DATE!!!!** > and therefore it is not nonsense. Yes, it is. > This code works, is useful and serves a purpose. Just because you don't > like the way it is written does not make it nonsense. Language, please! > No IT DOES NOT! > John. > > So you're saying that you don't know how to use dlloverrides on winecfg, right? that's basically the same thing winetools does except that wine now ignores the config file (makine winetools utterly useless, 100%, no questions asked). please just install all the native DLLs that winetools installs, and set a dlloverride in winecfg of * (native, builtin) for your exe file. Please stop spouting your mis-infomation.

March 29, 2006

Here is an RSS feed for front page of www.winehq.com

by Daniel Schwarz

I've long wondered why winehq.com does not provide an RSS feed. I've created one using the feed43.com sitescraping tool. Works well and it should be very low impact to your webserver (it only hits the URL at most once every 6 hours and caches the result for subsequent queries) Feel free to post this RSS link on the winehq homepage. http://feed43.com/winehq.xml Best Regards, Dan Schwarz

March 29, 2006

Re: "Unhandled exception: floating point stack check" early in program?

by Eric Pouech

Dan Kegel wrote: > See the winedbg session below. > Is it normal for winedbg to complain about > floating point stuff when the program, run normally, doesn't? > Using either 'cont' or 'pass' at this point just repeats the same message. > Hints welcome. > Thanks, > Dan > > dank(a)lappy:~$ ~/wine/programs/winedbg/winedbg ~/.wine/drive_c/putty/putty.exe > WineDbg starting on pid 0x42 > start_process () at /home/dank/wine/dlls/kernel/process.c:845 > 0x7fcbd259 start_process+0xb9 > [/home/dank/wine/dlls/kernel/process.c:845] in ker nel32: subl > $12,%esp > 845 ExitProcess( entry( peb ) ); > Wine-dbg>c > First chance exception: floating point stack check in 32-bit code (0x7f7a0d90). > Register dump: > CS:0073 SS:007b DS:007b ES:007b FS:1007 GS:0033 > EIP:7f7a0d90 ESP:7fafea58 EBP:7fafea90 EFLAGS:00010246( - 00 -RIZP1) > EAX:7fdc2400 EBX:7f7c00b0 ECX:00000000 EDX:7fdc2400 > ESI:7fafeaac EDI:00000002 > Stack dump: > 0x7fafea58: 7fafeb40 0000ffff 7fafea90 7f7c00b0 > 0x7fafea68: 0000005c 0000007c 7fafea90 7f79e0c6 > 0x7fafea78: 7f7c8f40 7fd868e8 0000005c 7f34e09c > 0x7fafea88: 63656a62 0000007c 7fafeac0 7f31a40f > 0x7fafea98: 000002e4 7fafeaac 00000002 7fafeb40 > 0x7fafeaa8: 7fafeb78 00000000 00000000 00000007 > 0200: sel=1007 base=7fec2000 limit=00001fff 32-bit rw- > Backtrace: > =>1 0x7f7a0d90 LPtoDP+0x50(hdc=0x2e4, points=0x7fafeaac, count=0x2) > [/home/dank/wine/dlls/gdi/mapping.c:132] in gdi32 (0x7f7a0d90) > 2 0x7f31a40f X11DRV_XWStoDS+0x3f(physDev=0x7fdc2558, width=0x7) > [/home/dank/wine/dlls/x11drv/graphics.c:307] in winex11 (0x7f31a40f) > 3 0x7f33e89d X11DRV_XRender_SelectFont+0x5d(physDev=0x7fdc2558, > hfont=0x7c) [/home/dank/wine/dlls/x11drv/xrender.c:554] in winex11 > (0x7f33e89d) > 4 0x7f3390e0 X11DRV_SelectFont+0xce0(physDev=0x7fdc2558, hfont=0x7c, > gdiFont=0x7fdb7110) [/home/dank/wine/dlls/x11drv/xfont.c:3234] in > winex11 (0x7f3390e0) > 5 0x7f78c52f FONT_SelectObject+0x6f(handle=0x7c, obj=0x7fd868d8, > hdc=0x2e4) [/home/dank/wine/dlls/gdi/font.c:587] in gdi32 (0x7f78c52f) > 6 0x7f79fb20 SelectObject+0x70(hdc=0x2e4, hObj=0x7c) > [/home/dank/wine/dlls/gdi/gdiobj.c:1168] in gdi32 (0x7f79fb20) > 7 0x7f77e9f7 DC_InitDC+0x77(dc=0x7fdc2400) > [/home/dank/wine/dlls/gdi/dc.c:204] in gdi32 (0x7f77e9f7) > 8 0x7f7801e9 CreateDCW+0x129(driver=0x7f34146c, device=0x0, > output=0x0, initData=0x0) [/home/dank/wine/dlls/gdi/dc.c:655] in gdi32 > (0x7f7801e9) > 9 0x7f304f27 X11DRV_GetDCEx+0x387(hwnd=0x10020, hrgnClip=0x0, > flags=0x3) [/home/dank/wine/dlls/x11drv/dce.c:214] in winex11 > (0x7f304f27) > 10 0x7f86acaa GetDCEx+0x3a(hwnd=0x0, hrgnClip=0x0, flags=0x3) > [/home/dank/wine/dlls/user/painting.c:476] in user32 (0x7f86acaa) > 11 0x7f86ad6c GetDC+0x3c(hwnd=0x0) > [/home/dank/wine/dlls/user/painting.c:490] in user32 (0x7f86ad6c) > 12 0x7f82ed0a GetDialogBaseUnits+0x3a > [/home/dank/wine/dlls/user/dialog.c:1411] in user32 (0x7f82ed0a) > 13 0x7f830c8b DIALOG_CreateIndirect+0x2b(dlgTemplate=<register not > in topmost frame>, dlgProc=0x4340e2, param=0x0, unicode=0x0, > modal=0x0) [/home/dank/wine/dlls/user/dialog.c:474] in user32 > (0x7f830c8b) > 14 0x7f83254e CreateDialogIndirectParamAorW+0x2e(hInst=0x400000, > dlgTemplate=0x46bcc0, owner=0x0, dlgProc=0x4340e2, param=0x0, > flags=0x2) [/home/dank/wine/dlls/user/dialog.c:697] in user32 > (0x7f83254e) > 15 0x7f83264e CreateDialogIndirectParamA+0x2e(hInst=0x400000, > dlgTemplate=0x46bcc0, owner=0x0, dlgProc=0x4340e2, param=0x0) > [/home/dank/wine/dlls/user/dialog.c:706] in user32 (0x7f83264e) > 16 0x7f8326c6 CreateDialogParamA+0x66(hInst=0x400000, name=0x6f, > owner=0x0, dlgProc=0x4340e2, param=0x0) > [/home/dank/wine/dlls/user/dialog.c:670] in user32 (0x7f8326c6) > 17 0x00434801 in putty (+0x34801) (0x00434801) > 18 0x442922a7 (0x442922a7) that's rather strange... even if the support for FPU is still lagging (see Petr's latest patches on the subject), the pass command should make it work (or at least not stay where the exception occured) I'd be interested in a +seh trace with a pass command issued in the debugger A+ -- Eric Pouech

March 29, 2006

Re: Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all.

by Kuba Ober

Typos, typos everywhere :) > I've resisted switching from Pascal to C/C++ my whole high school, as I > considered C too have too convoluted a syntax. My opinion hasn't changed, > it's just that for a long time gcc was a tool of choice for a while and > learning C was a necessity, pure and simple. C++ is better as you can should have been > I've resisted switching from Pascal to C/C++ my whole high school, as I > considered C to have too convoluted a syntax. My opinion hasn't changed, > it's just that gcc was a tool of choice for a while and > learning C was a necessity, pure and simple. C++ is better as you can Cheers, Kuba

March 29, 2006

Re: server: Fix FPU registers in get_thread_context()

by Petr Tesarik

Dne 03/27/06 v 17:19:47 (+0200), Petr Tesarik napsal(a): > Dne 03/27/06 v 08:03:58 (-0700), Vitaliy Margolen napsal(a): > > Monday, March 27, 2006, 12:51:03 AM, Petr Tesarik wrote: > > > [skip] > > > > > * Look at ContextFlags to see which registers are saved in > > > thread->context. > > > > Sorry this is not correct. Exception handler should get full context > > including FPU context. If we not saving it that's the problem on the > > other end. > > I don't think so. A real 80386 without a math coprocessor does not > even have an FPU context. I guess this is why CONTEXT_FULL does not > include CONTEXT_FLOATING_POINT. As I'm re-thinking it once more, I'm no longer sure about my point. You're right that the signal handler must definitely save the FPU state if there is one. Otherwise, it can't restore the context correctly if the exception handler uses the FPU (which it is AFAIK allowed to do). And at least under Linux, there is always an FPU state (either from a real FPU, or emulated). So, I'll change my question: Is there a platform, where FPU instructions can't be invoked unless there is a real FPU? To kick the answers off, I'm providing a table of possible operating systems we run on the x86 architecture. Whoever knows for sure that floating point instructions can or can not be safely run even without a real (hardware) FPU, please help complete the chart. Also, feel free to add any other systems which can run Wine. Linux: OK FreeBSD: ??? NetBSD: ??? OpenBSD: ??? Solaris: ??? OS/X: ??? Petr Tesarik

March 29, 2006

Re: Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all.

by Joachim von Thadden

Am Di, Mär 28, 2006 at 03:21:01 -0500 schrieb Segin: > How? The biggest thing that makes WineTools work is it's ability to set > DLLOverrides via a config file that Wine no longer acknoleges, therfore As this myth is floating around on this list since a long time I have to repeat: WineTools is not using a deprecated config file. It uses the regular registry way since a long time. > that is gone, and only a few things will work via WineTools, if at all. So this is also not true. > You can't install IE with WineTools (You can with IEs4Linux, and if you > are good enough, you can merge the ies4linux wine setup into the main If you use IEs4Linux you are actually using the overrides setup of WineTools as they took it from us. This also means that you have the most critisized *=native override included. We are working on this so you will probably have this on IEs4Linux soon after we fixed that. Regards Joachim von Thadden -- "Never touch a running system! Never run a touching system? Never run a touchy system!!!"

March 29, 2006

Re: Alexandre Julliard : x11drv: Moved desktop mode handling to the explorer process.

by Robert Shearman

Willie Sippel wrote: >OK, maybe I got something completely wrong. I'll give you an example to show >the problem I mean: > >Traktor DJ Player, by Native Instruments > >On Windows: >The main application window has no borders, appears in the taskbar, can be >minimized and moved like any regular window. > >On Wine (Kwin handles Wine windows): >The main application has a KDE window decoration that hides the top part of >the interface. Everything else works as espected, but there should be no Kwin >decoration, especially as it hides parts of the interface, making the >application unusable. > >On Wine (Wine handles windows): >The application window looks as expected, no borders, can be moved around and >stuff. But it's always on top, always on all desktops and does not appear in >the taskbar. Which is completely wrong. Also, if minimized, you'll get a >stupid icon somewhere on the desktop, on all desktops, always on top, hiding >the K-Menu... > >The perfect solution would be to let Kwin (or whatever window manager) handle >the borderless windows, but don't draw any window decorations if the >applications doesn't want to. That's what I expected to achieve with Motif >hints (but I'm obviously too stupid, all I get are nice crashes)... > > It sounds like the borders being present is a separate problem. Without knowing what windows styles the application is using (it could be using a weird combination that doesn't set the correct hints), it sounds like the application is handling the WM_NCCALCSIZE message and overriding the non-client top border to 0 and drawing its own part of that interface. The trouble is that detecting this is rather hard. A solution is possible where after it is detected that the non-client size has been altered and the MWM flags adjusted appropriately, but this would be based on heuristics like the existing managed/unmanaged problem and sometimes the heuristics get it wrong. This is just another case where if we do the right case for one problem then another problem crops up and it appears as though we are introducing regressions. In reality, fixing the managed/unmanaged window problem would be a huge step forward for everyone even if further work is necessary to make windows appear as expected. -- Rob Shearman

March 29, 2006

Re: Alexandre Julliard : x11drv: Moved desktop mode handling to the explorer process.

by Willie Sippel

Am Mittwoch, 29. März 2006 16:26 schrieb Robert Shearman: > Willie Sippel wrote: > >However, I ranted enough I think. Back to the real problem. AFAIU, there's > >only a single common/ feasible/ intelligent way to create borderless > > windows on X11 - managed windows with 'no decoration' Motif hints (the > > way GTK handles borderless windows). The example I found looks easy > > enough, only a few lines of code, but I was once again reminded that Wine > > really is way over my head - I have no idea how to hack that in to at > > least test it... :-( > > The code is already in dlls/x11drv/window.c and it works well. The > trouble is that managed mode windows steal input focus when they are > created. To give you an example, you click on a text box in IE to put > your email address into a form and you're half-way through typing it in > when a tooltip appears. This steals input focus away from the text box > and you carry on typing without noticing until you look back at the > screen and notice only half of your email address is present. The same > problems occur for menus and "toast" notifications. > OK, maybe I got something completely wrong. I'll give you an example to show the problem I mean: Traktor DJ Player, by Native Instruments On Windows: The main application window has no borders, appears in the taskbar, can be minimized and moved like any regular window. On Wine (Kwin handles Wine windows): The main application has a KDE window decoration that hides the top part of the interface. Everything else works as espected, but there should be no Kwin decoration, especially as it hides parts of the interface, making the application unusable. On Wine (Wine handles windows): The application window looks as expected, no borders, can be moved around and stuff. But it's always on top, always on all desktops and does not appear in the taskbar. Which is completely wrong. Also, if minimized, you'll get a stupid icon somewhere on the desktop, on all desktops, always on top, hiding the K-Menu... The perfect solution would be to let Kwin (or whatever window manager) handle the borderless windows, but don't draw any window decorations if the applications doesn't want to. That's what I expected to achieve with Motif hints (but I'm obviously too stupid, all I get are nice crashes)... -- Willie Sippel //////// | Tritium Studios // | ______________________________ //// /// | http://www.tritium-studios.com <willie(a)froq.net>

March 29, 2006

Re: [OT] Re: Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all.

by Tom Spear

On 3/29/06, Ray Jones <rayjones(a)gmx.net> wrote: > > > > Being of sensitive nature I'd remove him from the list so he will find > > appropriate lists to talk constructively in. (Be I wine-devel moderator) > > > > Poppycock. The discussion he initiated ain't that useless, and as I see > it, he > was rather addressing a possible reply denying the (read: /his/) fact, > that this > one reason (why it is useless) is inargueable, than a certain person > (sarcasm, > anyone?). > > So, Inargueable, eh? > > Well. Depends. > > I use both Sidenet and Winetools, they both provide an easy way to have a > quick > and simple (more or less basic) setup for wine established. > > But in reality those (original) scripts are pretty much useless to me > since I > don't use the ~/.wine path, because I > a) have multiple versions of wine installed (compiled) and > b) need to use multiple instances of those wine-versions. > Of course, after modifying the scripts, everything works as supposed. > > Also, Winetools give you the ability to install several additional > applications > per button, but I don't think that should be the future. > If I want to install > Office then it has to work via double clicking the setup.exe. /Period/. > > Wine should provide an own beautiful setup (something like > wineprefixcreate+), > to install the directory structure and whatnot, > the rest has to be considered as working out of the box. > And if not, there is still the AppDB. > > > In the end, one will find Winetools/Sidenet or any derivates useful, the > other > not. > But those tools *should* become useless one day. And that is inargueable, > despite of any IQ. > > > > -Ray > > > > > > > This is the most well said email I have seen on this topic yet. Yes I am saying mine were pointless, including this one :-D Tom

March 29, 2006

Re: Alexandre Julliard : x11drv: Moved desktop mode handling to the explorer process.

by Robert Shearman

Willie Sippel wrote: >However, I ranted enough I think. Back to the real problem. AFAIU, there's >only a single common/ feasible/ intelligent way to create borderless windows >on X11 - managed windows with 'no decoration' Motif hints (the way GTK >handles borderless windows). The example I found looks easy enough, only a >few lines of code, but I was once again reminded that Wine really is way over >my head - I have no idea how to hack that in to at least test it... :-( > The code is already in dlls/x11drv/window.c and it works well. The trouble is that managed mode windows steal input focus when they are created. To give you an example, you click on a text box in IE to put your email address into a form and you're half-way through typing it in when a tooltip appears. This steals input focus away from the text box and you carry on typing without noticing until you look back at the screen and notice only half of your email address is present. The same problems occur for menus and "toast" notifications. Let's examine the properties of unmanaged windows (there may be others that I'm unaware of): They: 1. Have no window decorations 2. Are always on top 3. Appear on all virtual desktops. Properties (1) and (2) have equal properties in the Win32 world. However, currently only (1) is implemented. AFAIK, the reason (2) isn't implemented is because it isn't set at window creation time, only after window creation (and we cannot switch from managed to unmanaged after creation). Therefore, the solution is to allow managed windows to be converted to unmanaged windows after creation and then we can implement (2) and have an almost exact match of the desired properties of the window with the actual properties that the window manager gives us. Then we can remove the other hacks based on the window style that make Steam end up with an unmanaged window. -- Rob Shearman

March 29, 2006

Re: Alexandre Julliard : x11drv: Moved desktop mode handling to the explorer process.

by Dimi Paun

From: "Mike McCormack" <mike(a)codeweavers.com> > Yep. Just large enough for people to complain about, and demand that > somebody else take care of the problem, Now! ;) One of those things :) Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm glad Alexandre got around to move the desktop to the explorer process. My comments where of a more general nature, not about this particular patch. Overall, we're much better off with the desktop in explorer and fewer features, than the situation we were in before, which blocked all sorts of cool integration tasks. Sometimes you need a step back to be able to sustain future development. This is one of those situations. -- Dimi Paun <dimi(a)lattica.com> Lattica, Inc.

March 29, 2006

Re: Alexandre Julliard : x11drv: Moved desktop mode handling to the explorer process.

by Mike McCormack

Dimi Paun wrote: > Problem is that the breakage is not large enough to motivate > people. Yep. Just large enough for people to complain about, and demand that somebody else take care of the problem, Now! ;) Mike

March 29, 2006

Re: [OT] Re: Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all.

by Ray Jones

> Being of sensitive nature I'd remove him from the list so he will find > appropriate lists to talk constructively in. (Be I wine-devel moderator) > Poppycock. The discussion he initiated ain't that useless, and as I see it, he was rather addressing a possible reply denying the (read: /his/) fact, that this one reason (why it is useless) is inargueable, than a certain person (sarcasm, anyone?). So, Inargueable, eh? Well. Depends. I use both Sidenet and Winetools, they both provide an easy way to have a quick and simple (more or less basic) setup for wine established. But in reality those (original) scripts are pretty much useless to me since I don't use the ~/.wine path, because I a) have multiple versions of wine installed (compiled) and b) need to use multiple instances of those wine-versions. Of course, after modifying the scripts, everything works as supposed. Also, Winetools give you the ability to install several additional applications per button, but I don't think that should be the future. If I want to install Office then it has to work via double clicking the setup.exe. /Period/. Wine should provide an own beautiful setup (something like wineprefixcreate+), to install the directory structure and whatnot, the rest has to be considered as working out of the box. And if not, there is still the AppDB. In the end, one will find Winetools/Sidenet or any derivates useful, the other not. But those tools *should* become useless one day. And that is inargueable, despite of any IQ. -Ray

March 29, 2006

Re: Alexandre Julliard : x11drv: Moved desktop mode handling to the explorer process.

by Willie Sippel

Am Mittwoch, 29. März 2006 15:14 schrieb Marcus Meissner: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:47:06PM +0200, Willie Sippel wrote: > ... > > > > Isn't it just better to start with a patch that is "right", but will > > > still show regressions, then fix those regressions, as opposed to > > > starting with a patch that is wrong, and then hacking on it forever > > > trying to solve the unsolvable problems that causes? > > > > You are right, of course. I'm all for doing stuff right, and I'm not a > > friend of quick-and-dirty hacks myself. I simply can't understand why > > most serious regressions introduced in the last two years are seemingly > > not worked on at all - they simply seem to get ignored. I'm sorry if my > > mail sounded like a > > Simple. > > No one is paying to get it fixed ;) (And it requires a lot of effort > for Joe Random Coder.) > > Thats just OpenSource for you. > O RLY? ;-D I know how that stuff works, I'm part of a few projects myself. Still, I'm the 'I broke it, I'll fix it' kinda guy, but I know it's wrong to expect everyone to be the same. Especially in the case of Wine, as I'm sure the fixes that introduced the regression did more good than harm, in general. However, I ranted enough I think. Back to the real problem. AFAIU, there's only a single common/ feasible/ intelligent way to create borderless windows on X11 - managed windows with 'no decoration' Motif hints (the way GTK handles borderless windows). The example I found looks easy enough, only a few lines of code, but I was once again reminded that Wine really is way over my head - I have no idea how to hack that in to at least test it... :-( -- Willie Sippel //////// | Tritium Studios // | ______________________________ //// /// | http://www.tritium-studios.com <willie(a)froq.net>

March 29, 2006

Re: Alexandre Julliard : x11drv: Moved desktop mode handling to the explorer process.

by Dimi Paun

From: "Mike McCormack" <mike(a)codeweavers.com> > Wouldn't be much motivation for somebody to come up with a real fix if > there was already a half-baked fix in Wine already, would there? But neither does the keep-it-borken approach work, does it? :) Problem is that the breakage is not large enough to motivate people. I think we have to come to terms with the fact that Wine is big, and doing things right is not always an option. I seems to me that we'd be better off to have a working but not-so-perfect solution, rather than wait for years to have the perfect one. Of course, I agree that you can not merge any solution in, that road leads to madness. But we have to balance that with the fact that we have to be useful by offering the functionality that people need or want. Otherwise wine will become irrelevant before it becomes useful. And that would be a shame. -- Dimi Paun <dimi(a)lattica.com> Lattica, Inc.

March 29, 2006

Re: Why winetools is utterly useless, once and for all.

by Kuba Ober

On Tuesday 28 March 2006 23:30, Joseph Garvin wrote: > On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 17:22 -0500, Kuba Ober wrote: > > I was pretty serious when I said about Lisp. Once you get to know it, > > it's an extremely agile and productive programming language that has way > > more power than Python does. > > Even if that statement were true (I seriously doubt you can qualify it > with any actual evidence), 'power' isn't the only concern in choosing a > programming language for a project. Python has excellent community > support, tons of third party modules, several mature IDEs, and most of > all is easier for a new programmer to pickup than any other language > I've tried. Only after you were exposed to C/Modula-like languages in the first place. For someone who never programmed before it's easier to pick up Scheme than C, and I could hardly agree more with Natasha: http://www.inf.hs-zigr.de/~wagenkn/Natasha_Chen.html I've resisted switching from Pascal to C/C++ my whole high school, as I considered C too have too convoluted a syntax. My opinion hasn't changed, it's just that for a long time gcc was a tool of choice for a while and learning C was a necessity, pure and simple. C++ is better as you can essentially make a living not having to use a single pointer-to-function for a month at a time. But again, C++ is not C. > I'm also curious how you think that Lisp can somehow more concisely > represent the logic for this app. I haven't looked at any GUI bindings > for Lisp, but if they look anything like the OCaml ones it's just going > to be a dump of imperative code, which mostly defeats the point of using > a functional language in the first place. You can program in Lisp in both functional and imperative styles, and I guess that most Lisp programs have both styles in them. It mostly depends on what's handy at the moment :) > Python stole from Lisp what most people like about Lisp anyway. Well, functions aren't exactly first class citizens in Python, they were on their way to becoming so for some time AFAIK (more and more every release). That's something that was in Lisp since day one, OTOH. > > Lisp might be considered more obscure, that's sure, but > > that's due to people mostly being clueless (sorry, had to say that). For > > example there's no Python implementation that I know of that would even > > remotely compare (performance-wise) to Frantz Lisp, when running "dirty > > first-cut" code. > > The Python community pretty openly states that if performance is a major > concern for your project that Python is the wrong choice. You can code > part of your project in C (the performance critical parts) and the rest > in Python in some cases. If your app has a flat performance profile then > it's well known that Python isn't the best choice. Then again, no one is > going to use Lisp in that case either. IIRC the only reason that Orbitz became so good is because they had their flight search logic coded initially in Lisp. That's not only a fairly hardcore CPU-bound task, the choice of language made them way more agile feature-wise in their startup years. Right now they ported most of the code to C++, but I bet it was only feasible to do so after they got the architecture figured out and kinda settled down after hacking away in Lisp initially. > Bottom line -- this is a configurer. It's not run super often and what > it does isn't that computationally intensive anyway. Performance isn't a > concern. I know. I'm not overly concerned about that. I mainly wanted to redirect the flamewar elsewhere and have some fun at the same time. Yay :) > > Making it C implies not using Qt*, and I just can't see why anyone would > > *not* want to use Qt. I'm dead serious. It's probably the only framework > > right now that has any future, besides .net offerings and whatever is > > available for Java. Everything else (gtk, wxWidgets, . . .) simply has no > > support (compared to Qt). It's stupid to use dead solutions. > > Although I agree that Qt is the best choice, I'd have to disagree that > gtk is dead. wxWidgets will probably be around for some time too, Hanging around for some time vs. having full backing by a company are two different things. Last time I checked there was no single company of the size of Trolltech, or bigger :), whose bread and butter was developing gtk or wxWidgets, and who would have real good reason to develop either one of them further. I know that there are other thriving open source projects (Linux kernel, anyone?) where there is no single controlling company in charge, but those projects have achieved their critical mass long time ago and are past the infant stage. I don't see gtk or wxW anywhere near a critical mass. > if for > no other reason than that using Qt in C++ is a bit annoying because it > needlessly reinvents the wheel (there's a lot of overlap between Qt and > boost and even standard lib). Which is mainly of historical origin, as there was simply no decent implementation of boost or standard lib in the times when Qt began shipping. With model/view architecture supported so well by Qt4, you can have all your data in whatever containers you want, there's a tiny bit of interface code to write to get it to the widgets, that's all. I.e. Qt doesn't force you not to use boost, C++ library and so on. Cheers, Kuba

March 29, 2006

Re: Alexandre Julliard : x11drv: Moved desktop mode handling to the explorer process.

by Marcus Meissner

On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 02:47:06PM +0200, Willie Sippel wrote: ... > > Isn't it just better to start with a patch that is "right", but will > > still show regressions, then fix those regressions, as opposed to > > starting with a patch that is wrong, and then hacking on it forever > > trying to solve the unsolvable problems that causes? > > > You are right, of course. I'm all for doing stuff right, and I'm not a friend > of quick-and-dirty hacks myself. I simply can't understand why most serious > regressions introduced in the last two years are seemingly not worked on at > all - they simply seem to get ignored. I'm sorry if my mail sounded like a Simple. No one is paying to get it fixed ;) (And it requires a lot of effort for Joe Random Coder.) Thats just OpenSource for you. Ciao, Marcus

March 29, 2006

Re: Alexandre Julliard : x11drv: Moved desktop mode handling to the explorer process.

by Willie Sippel

Am Mittwoch, 29. März 2006 12:19 schrieb Stefan Dösinger: > Hello, > > > > You announced working on the unmanaged window problem in September 2001 > > > IIRC, but I guess you didn't so far? Wouldn't, for the time being, a > > > Cedega-like approach be feasible? They seem to ignore 'chromeless' > > > windows and handle them just like regular windows (with window > > > decoration and all, for Steam for example) - this is obviously not > > > correct, but it would at least work 'till someone comes up with a real > > > fix...? > > > > Wouldn't be much motivation for somebody to come up with a real fix if > > there was already a half-baked fix in Wine already, would there? > > I've sent 2 patches addressing this issue to wine-devel last year. The > first > patch(http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2005-March/016558.html) > made children of the desktop managed, the other patch made > WM_SYSMENU(Sorry, can't find this one in the archives) windows managed. > Both patches were neighter applied nor discussed further. > Did you check this[1] solution for borderless SDL applications? Looks somewhat hacky, but not too complicated. Maybe the basic idea is feasible for Wine as well? GTK (XMMS) seems to use the same approach ([2], Motif WM hints) to disable borders, and this concept works with pretty much every window manager... [1]: http://www.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl/2000-January/023704.html [2]: http://www.pygtk.org/pygtk2reference/class-gdkwindow.html#method-gdkwindow-… -- Willie Sippel //////// | Tritium Studios // | ______________________________ //// /// | http://www.tritium-studios.com <willie(a)froq.net>

March 29, 2006