On Thursday 29 June 2006 07:49, you wrote:
what is the gain of autorun, while i dont have wine running? would not the common user expect, once she knows, that wine support autorun.inf, that she can insert a cd and away it goes? while the explorer.exe is not running permanently - e.g. via xinitrc - then i still would have to deal with starting my setup.exe by hand. i have my doubts, that wine is the correct place to implement this - but something like hotplugd or whatevernowadaysdoesthetrickwithcdroms should handle this?
One could think of Wine as a service, and start it with X if they wanted, so they could then run Windows programs whenever they wanted with potentially faster startup times, and with Windows "features" like autorun, and with a persistant Windows state (eg. instead of being shut down when all Windows programs close, it would stay around until Wine itself is explicitly stopped). Or, like me currently, they could run a Windows desktop/taskbar replacement in a Wine virtual desktop with managed windows off on a seperate X desktop and pretend to have Windows running along side X.
I'd think if Wine were trying to "emulate" Windows as much as possible, it'd be backwards to not have autorun capabilities. As I said before, autorun.inf needs to be parsed anyway since it can define an icon to use for the drive, so if you're going to automatically parse it to load an icon, why not also ask (one time only) if the user wants to turn autorun on or off to run the defined program?
Thursday, June 29, 2006, 8:33:24 PM, Chris wrote:
On Thursday 29 June 2006 07:49, you wrote:
what is the gain of autorun, while i dont have wine running? would not the common user expect, once she knows, that wine support autorun.inf, that she can insert a cd and away it goes? while the explorer.exe is not running permanently - e.g. via xinitrc - then i still would have to deal with starting my setup.exe by hand. i have my doubts, that wine is the correct place to implement this - but something like hotplugd or whatevernowadaysdoesthetrickwithcdroms should handle this?
One could think of Wine as a service, and start it with X if they wanted, so they could then run Windows programs whenever they wanted with potentially faster startup times, and with Windows "features" like autorun, and with a persistant Windows state (eg. instead of being shut down when all Windows programs close, it would stay around until Wine itself is explicitly stopped). Or, like me currently, they could run a Windows desktop/taskbar replacement in a Wine virtual desktop with managed windows off on a seperate X desktop and pretend to have Windows running along side X.
I'd think if Wine were trying to "emulate" Windows as much as possible, it'd be backwards to not have autorun capabilities. As I said before, autorun.inf needs to be parsed anyway since it can define an icon to use for the drive, so if you're going to automatically parse it to load an icon, why not also ask (one time only) if the user wants to turn autorun on or off to run the defined program?
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
On Thursday 29 June 2006 21:13, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
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.
This sounds like you missed my point. My argument isn't that autorun is cool and Linux should have it (when in fact KDE *does* have it, to some degree), my argument is that Windows has it and it's not inherently detramental (since the user would be instructed to manually do what autorun does automatically anyway, and hence have the same effects), so Wine, if it is trying to match Windows feature-for-feature and bug-for-bug, should have it too. IMO, of course.
If I knew how dbus and hal worked, I would probbly try to make the necesarry patches. But as I'm not familiar with Win32 or Wine's internals, I'm not really qualified to work on it, at this time. I'm just a user voicing my opinion.
On 6/30/06, Chris chris.kcat@gmail.com wrote:
This sounds like you missed my point.
I think you're missing our points Chris...
it's not inherently detramental (since the user would be instructed to manually do what autorun does automatically
Yeah. The Sony rootkit users would have gladly followed the instructions on their _audio CDs_ telling them to install software that prevented fair use and installed illegal software.
We're not talking about preventing legitimate use of auto-running CDs. We're talking about a sound, simple, and easy way to prevent illegitimate exploitation.
If you can develop a way for Wine to automatically determine whether or not an executable on removable media is something useful or a rootkit, then you may get a little more enthusiasm for this 'feature'.
--tim
--- Chris chris.kcat@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday 29 June 2006 21:13, Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
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.
This sounds like you missed my point. My argument isn't that autorun is cool and Linux should have it (when in fact KDE *does* have it, to some degree), my argument is that Windows has it and it's not inherently detramental (since the user would be instructed to manually do what autorun does automatically anyway, and hence have the same effects), so Wine, if it is trying to match Windows feature-for-feature and bug-for-bug, should have it too. IMO, of course.
Exactly. Windows is such a ubiquitous OS that it sets the standards for all others. Users see Windows autoruning stuff, so when Linux doesn't, "Windows is better".
If I knew how dbus and hal worked, I would probbly try to make the necesarry patches. But as I'm not familiar with Win32 or Wine's internals, I'm not really qualified to work on it, at this time. I'm just a user voicing my opinion.
Chances are it's probably going to work better (and raise fewer objections from developers) if you start wine from the Gnome or KDE autorun, rather than try make wine autorun stuff internally. (Autoruning stuff internally in wine is problematic: both wine and Gnome/KDE could be trying to autorun something at the same time!)
I've used hal and dbus before: they're not as bad as they look. Look at wine's explorer, it uses them to both monitor hardware for changes and query hardware properties.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Chris -
Damjan Jovanovic -
Tim Schmidt -
Vitaliy Margolen