And the slashdot thread: Shuttleworth Says Ubuntu Can't Just Be Windows http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1546230
--- On Wed, 6/5/09, nn saturn_systems@yahoo.com wrote:
From: nn saturn_systems@yahoo.com Subject: Shuttleworth on Wine To: wine-devel@winehq.org Received: Wednesday, 6 May, 2009, 9:04 AM
Shuttleworth on Wine http://www.osnews.com/story/21438/Shuttleworth_on_Wine
Yahoo!7 recommends that you update your browser to the new Internet Explorer 8.Get it now.
The new Internet Explorer 8 optimised for Yahoo!7: Faster, Safer, Easier.
2009/5/6 nn saturn_systems@yahoo.com:
And the slashdot thread: Shuttleworth Says Ubuntu Can't Just Be Windows http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1546230
This is nothing new. It's just now we have a celebrity saying it.
I also don't like the wording used; I'd prefer "Shuttleworth Says Ubuntu Can't Be Just Windows", referring to "he said that Ubuntu cannot ***be simply*** a better platform to run Windows apps." (instead of "simply be").
Connotation is different, and much closer to what he actually said in the discussion.
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/6 nn saturn_systems@yahoo.com:
And the slashdot thread: Shuttleworth Says Ubuntu Can't Just Be Windows http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1546230
This is nothing new. It's just now we have a celebrity saying it.
Not only that. Canonical has decided a few years ago that Wine would not be included for this reason. [1] So it's really really really old news.
Remco
[1] http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/11/1220219&art_pos=4
I'd say that attitutudes might change, though. For example, he is mentioning photoshop(of course) which I use at home under win. It works great there.
There are only a few quirks with the installation: 1. it need 1.1.17 to work 2. a DLL is needed for the text-tool to work. 3. A winetricks has to be done.
When those things are fixed(I guess 1. is the most important), gradually more people will start using wine, hence acceptance will grow, and eventually even Mark Shuttleworth will come around. If I were the leader of the wine project, the moment photoshop CS4 works all the way, that would be the basis of the next stable version(to avoid regessions to the highest degree).. I believe that the popularity of wine(yes, popularity is extra important for a FOSS project) would skyrocket. Then it would be a toy no more.
//Nicklas
-----Original Message----- From: wine-devel-bounces@winehq.org [mailto:wine-devel-bounces@winehq.org] On Behalf Of Remco Sent: den 6 maj 2009 01:35 To: Ben Klein Cc: wine-devel@winehq.org Subject: Re: Shuttleworth on Wine
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/6 nn saturn_systems@yahoo.com:
And the slashdot thread: Shuttleworth Says Ubuntu Can't Just Be Windows http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/05/1546230
This is nothing new. It's just now we have a celebrity saying it.
Not only that. Canonical has decided a few years ago that Wine would not be included for this reason. [1] So it's really really really old news.
Remco
[1] http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/11/1220219&art_pos=4
2009/5/6 Nicklas Börjesson Nicklas.Borjesson@ws.se:
If I were the leader of the wine project, the moment photoshop CS4 works all the way, that would be the basis of the next stable version(to avoid regessions to the highest degree)..
As has been said plenty of times before, we don't want to base Wine releases around particular applications.
I believe that the popularity of wine(yes, popularity is extra important for a FOSS project) would skyrocket. Then it would be a toy no more.
I think you're seriously underestimating Wine, and the amount of 'real' work it can accomplish. The world doesn't revolve around Adobe products, contrary to what many recent converts to GNU/Linux may think.
Though, I must say, the majority of people I see/hear using Photoshop *are* using it as a toy/hobby, not for 'real' work, i.e., a full time job.
2009/5/7 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
Though, I must say, the majority of people I see/hear using Photoshop *are* using it as a toy/hobby, not for 'real' work, i.e., a full time job.
Yes. The biggest problem for free-as-in-freedom software - Linux and GIMP, and to some extent Wine - is that Windows and Photoshop are effectively free-as-in-beer software ...
http://autotelic.com/windows_is_free
- d.
On Thu, 7 May 2009 16:47:32 +0100 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. The biggest problem for free-as-in-freedom software - Linux and GIMP, and to some extent Wine - is that Windows and Photoshop are effectively free-as-in-beer software ...
Windows is not free. You can buy a EeePC running Linux that has 8GB more then the windows version.
On Fri, 8 May 2009 18:43:20 +0100 IneedAname wineappdb@gmail.com wrote:
Windows is not free. You can buy a EeePC running Linux that has 8GB more then the windows version.
Both the Linux and Windows versions are at the same price.
Sorry I send this email with out finishing it.
I think you're seriously underestimating Wine, and the amount of 'real' work it can accomplish. The world doesn't revolve around Adobe products, contrary to what many recent converts to GNU/Linux may think.
As usual, I am not talking about myself, but people in generals' perception of it, which reflected quite well in Shuttleworths comments. Whatever you think of the guy, remember he was a developer on the Debian project in the nineties. He's not totally unitiated. And I don't think he is unique in any way.
Also, (quoting http://www.winehq.org/about/): "Wine is still under development, and it is not yet suitable for general use." Doesn't say stability. Especially when the version has passed 1.0.
And the *rest* of the world DO revolve around a few applications. That is why they think so.
Though, I must say, the majority of people I see/hear using Photoshop *are* using it as a toy/hobby, not for 'real' work, i.e., a full time job.
I have the same impression. And most haven't paid for it either. Anyway, that really isn't important. The important thing is that they want it, no why.
2009/5/8 Nicklas Börjesson Nicklas.Borjesson@ws.se:
And the *rest* of the world DO revolve around a few applications. That is why they think so.
No, the rest of the world does not revolve around a few applications, it's just that the #1 complaint against free operating systems has been traditionally "it won't run Photoshop". In my experience, most people who argue this don't even care about it, and in fact some people miss the point entirely and dismiss Wine as "not a solution", because they expect it to run natively, fluidly, with complete desktop integration etc.
Though, I must say, the majority of people I see/hear using Photoshop *are* using it as a toy/hobby, not for 'real' work, i.e., a full time job.
I have the same impression. And most haven't paid for it either. Anyway, that really isn't important.
Except that WineHQ does not officially support pirated software (it may run, but you'll get no official help getting it to run or work properly).
The important thing is that they want it, no why.
As it stands, yes, the fact that they want it is more important than why. It's also unimportant to Wine's goals (which is for *all* applications to run, not just Photoshop), and should not be considered a factor in determining when the next release is ready.
Ben Klein wrote:
2009/5/8 Nicklas Börjesson Nicklas.Borjesson@ws.se:
And the *rest* of the world DO revolve around a few applications. That is why they think so.
No, the rest of the world does not revolve around a few applications, it's just that the #1 complaint against free operating systems has been traditionally "it won't run Photoshop". In my experience, most people who argue this don't even care about it, and in fact some people miss the point entirely and dismiss Wine as "not a solution", because they expect it to run natively, fluidly, with complete desktop integration etc.
The great thing about this is these are all solvable problems, even in the near term. Photoshop almost works. Desktop integration is almost there. I'm doing what I can to make Wine a very impressive piece of software to the point where its integration into the desktop seems completely natural.
Though, I must say, the majority of people I see/hear using Photoshop *are* using it as a toy/hobby, not for 'real' work, i.e., a full time job.
I have the same impression. And most haven't paid for it either. Anyway, that really isn't important.
Except that WineHQ does not officially support pirated software (it may run, but you'll get no official help getting it to run or work properly).
Internet Explorer: Free as in beer. Wine: Free as in speech. Photoshop: Free as in stolen.
The important thing is that they want it, no why.
As it stands, yes, the fact that they want it is more important than why. It's also unimportant to Wine's goals (which is for *all* applications to run, not just Photoshop), and should not be considered a factor in determining when the next release is ready.
We had "no application regressions" as a release goal for 1.0, more or less - in practice that meant we were targeting every application users wanted to test it on. But there were also 4 specific apps targeted too - IIRC stuff like word viewer. In principle there's no reason an application like Photoshop couldn't be considered release critical in much the same fashion these were.
For practical reasons, however, we probably don't want to target particular applications just because they're popular - a better strategy would be to target particular users who only need one application that is almost working. At least, that's what the model I wrote told me: http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/48
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
2009/5/8 Scott Ritchie scott@open-vote.org:
We had "no application regressions" as a release goal for 1.0, more or less
- in practice that meant we were targeting every application users wanted to
test it on. But there were also 4 specific apps targeted too - IIRC stuff like word viewer. In principle there's no reason an application like Photoshop couldn't be considered release critical in much the same fashion these were.
Yes, the targets were Microsoft Word/Powerpoint viewer, while cheap and free to download, they're both actually pretty complex (office based).
As a shameless plug, this is the kind of stuff I'm planning on testing this summer for Summer of Code. Photoshop, however, is harder to test, since it doesn't have an easy free download available.
Adobe reader/photoshop album, however, may be a bit easier to test, and have the bonus of some similar bugs.
If anyone has some simple applications that are easy to test (preferably, with no installer), shoot me an e-mail and I'll add it to my my list of applications to look at.
Photoshop, however, is harder to test, since it doesn't have an easy free download available.
Free photoshop trial download, you do need to register (and download through the "download manager") though: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop
I have only tried to install licensed versions myself, however the installation shouldn't be totally different, except for being a bit easier to start(not having to mount a dvd and so on). I think testing the trial version would be quite sufficient.
//Nicklas
2009/5/9 Nicklas Börjesson Nicklas.Borjesson@ws.se:
Photoshop, however, is harder to test, since it doesn't have an easy free download available.
Free photoshop trial download, you do need to register (and download through the "download manager") though: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop
It's the registering/download manager that makes it not useful. It's much harder to script all of that.
It's the registering/download manager that makes it not useful. It's much harder to script all of that.
Why script that? One doesn't need wine to download a file, right? I really don't see what the point would be to test that. Once you downloaded the file, you don't need to download that version again. The only thing that needs testing is the actual running of that file and the following installation. Why test the Adobe website? Or have I misunderstood you completely?
//Nicklas
2009/5/9 Nicklas Börjesson Nicklas.Borjesson@ws.se:
It's the registering/download manager that makes it not useful. It's much harder to script all of that.
Why script that? One doesn't need wine to download a file, right? I really don't see what the point would be to test that. Once you downloaded the file, you don't need to download that version again. The only thing that needs testing is the actual running of that file and the following installation. Why test the Adobe website? Or have I misunderstood you completely?
http://socghop.appspot.com/student_project/show/google/gsoc2009/wine/t124024... http://www.nabble.com/SOC-2009%3A-Application-Test-Suite-tc22692224.html
http://socghop.appspot.com/student_project/show/google/gsoc2009/wine/t124024... http://www.nabble.com/SOC-2009%3A-Application-Test-Suite-tc22692224.html
Interesting project. At my workplace, we use TestComplete for testing GUI-applications, I have had some problems finding similar applications for Linux, which is kind of strange, since X11 should make it really easy to create positively fantastic testing facilities.
After reading about it, though, I still don't see what would be the point in downloading the application as a part of the test, not being a part of the applications functionality.
IMHO.
//Nicklas
2009/5/9 Nicklas Börjesson Nicklas.Borjesson@ws.se:
http://socghop.appspot.com/student_project/show/google/gsoc2009/wine/t124024... http://www.nabble.com/SOC-2009%3A-Application-Test-Suite-tc22692224.html
Interesting project. At my workplace, we use TestComplete for testing GUI-applications, I have had some problems finding similar applications for Linux, which is kind of strange, since X11 should make it really easy to create positively fantastic testing facilities.
After reading about it, though, I still don't see what would be the point in downloading the application as a part of the test, not being a part of the applications functionality.
The idea is to make the test as automated as possible. That way anyone can run the tests, not just people with certain programs.
The idea is to make the test as automated as possible. That way anyone can run the tests, not just people with certain programs.
Ok. Well then, either: 1. someone can mirror those two files somewhere for easier downloading, 2. or one adds one or two(quite easy) manual step to the installation instructions.
1. makes scripting possible, however, Adobe probably would not like that. However, one *could* simply ask them if it's ok. I don't see how this quite specific use case would(come on, it's a trial version) be a problem for them and I would think that getting their application working under wine would be something they would like happening. 2. I think that one should try to be a bit pragmatical. If a couple of simple manual steps is all that is needed to get an otherwise completely automated process going, it should not be allowed to be a problem.
Anyway, as I said, interesting project, since we(at work) are in the progress of automating some tests that have to use a browser(testing of some ajax-y web applications). I would prefer to run these tests on a Linux system for a number of reasons.
//Nicklas
2009/5/10 Nicklas Börjesson Nicklas.Borjesson@ws.se:
The idea is to make the test as automated as possible. That way anyone can run the tests, not just people with certain programs.
Ok. Well then, either:
someone can mirror those two files somewhere for easier downloading,
or one adds one or two(quite easy) manual step to the installation instructions.
makes scripting possible, however, Adobe probably would not like that.
However, one *could* simply ask them if it's ok. I don't see how this quite specific use case would(come on, it's a trial version) be a problem for them and I would think that getting their application working under wine would be something they would like happening.
It violates their copyright, and I have no interest in doing that.
- I think that one should try to be a bit pragmatical. If a couple of simple
manual steps is all that is needed to get an otherwise completely automated process going, it should not be allowed to be a problem.
Is possible, but since it requires a login, the script will eventually fail from too many login/downloads.
Is possible, but since it requires a login, the script will eventually fail from too many login/downloads.
No, i mean that one would have to register an account for oneself and manually download the files to a predetermined location. Using the same account for everyone would likely be some kind of breach of their rules anyway. I'd say, given instructions, that would take 5-10 minutes for most people. Don't you think people would consider that acceptable to make a quite important test run(i would)?
//Nicklas
2009/5/11 Nicklas Börjesson Nicklas.Borjesson@ws.se:
Is possible, but since it requires a login, the script will eventually fail from too many login/downloads.
No, i mean that one would have to register an account for oneself and manually download the files to a predetermined location. Using the same account for everyone would likely be some kind of breach of their rules anyway. I'd say, given instructions, that would take 5-10 minutes for most people. Don't you think people would consider that acceptable to make a quite important test run(i would)?
Feel free, if you'd like.
But the test suite I'm designing for my project is designed for anyone to be able to use/run, non-interactively. Requiring sign-ups/logins is not acceptable for it.
Austin English wrote:
It's the registering/download manager that makes it not useful. It's much harder to script all of that.
Is CS2 too old? http://download.adobe.com/pub/adobe/photoshop/win/cs2/Photoshop_CS2.exe
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Ken Sharp kennybobs@o2.co.uk wrote:
Austin English wrote:
It's the registering/download manager that makes it not useful. It's much harder to script all of that.
Is CS2 too old? http://download.adobe.com/pub/adobe/photoshop/win/cs2/Photoshop_CS2.exe
No, actually. CS2 is perfect, since it should install relatively well. That way, we can make sure it doesn't break :-).
I'll add it to my list. I'm currently working on designing the test framework, so it'll be a bit before any real testing work gets done.
If anyone has some simple applications that are easy to test (preferably, with no installer), shoot me an e-mail and I'll add it to my my list of applications to look at.
Ha. That's a shame because Installshield is a real PITA. ;-)
a better strategy would be to target particular users who only need one application that is almost working. At least, that's what the model I wrote told me: http://yokozar.org/blog/archives/48
That strategy(to no ones surprise) appeals to me, since it feels like common sense, and is close to how most of those I work/worked with think. But I am not sure it would have worked earlier in the project when having nearly working use cases would be less usual and when having broad, or no focus would make the project more interesting for its developers.
Anyway, It seems likely to make the most number of users happy with the least amount of work. However, since some applications(no names) are very widespread/pirated AND close to working, it will have the effect of more or less officially focusing on certain applications, which i think would be hard to push through in this project for different reasons. To try and define the most usual "near working" use cases also means defining the most usual use cases since it then would be important to keep the "working" use cases from becoming "near working".
To do that, one need needs user input which would make the project user centric. Of course, the *entire* project wouldn't have to have the same focus but it would be affected. I'd think that this would be good and appeal more to me and others as developers wanting to do good things(tm). But I know that many does not agree.
//Nicklas
-
Austin English -
Ben Klein -
David Gerard -
IneedAname -
Ken Sharp -
Nicklas Börjesson -
nn -
Remco -
Scott Ritchie