Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wine 1.2 Release Candidate Announced

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the vintage-2010 dept.

Wine 165

An anonymous reader writes "After evolving over 15 years to get to 1.0, a mere 2 years later and Wine 1.2 is just about here. There have been many many improvements and plenty of new features added. Listing just a few (doing no justice to the complete change set): many new toolbar icons; support for alpha blending in image lists; much more complete shader assembler; support for Arabic font shaping and joining, and a number of fixes for video rendering; font anti-aliasing configuration through fontconfig; and improved handling of desktop link files. Win64 support is the milestone that marks this release. Please test your favorite applications for problems and regressions and let the Wine team know so fixes can be made before the final release. Find the release candidate here."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What? (-1, Offtopic)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302106)

15 years to get to 1.0? That is seriously slow development.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302152)

It isn't that slow when the target keeps moving. 17 years ago, we weren't even using NT, some of us were still using DOS as being "good enough" and the rest of us were using Windows 3.x, now those goals have changed and WINE has to run 32 and 64 bit software written for Vista and Windows 7. 15 years would be a long time for a "dead" platform like the Atari 2600 or the SNES. But Windows is changing and what was "good enough" one year now needs major work to keep up with the programs.

Re:What? (4, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302174)

I'm actually quite surprised with the more recent movement of Wine though. I remember assuming nothing was going to work. Now I can assume that it might work, which is a serious improvement, IMHO. Previously I never attempted to run something unless I looked it up in the App DB and now I just run the apps and see what happens.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303464)

One of the easiest ways to manage Wine versions and installing games: http://www.playonlinux.com/en/ [playonlinux.com]

Re:What? (3, Interesting)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302334)

I remember 16 years ago on the Wine mailing list saying that spending time supporting Win16 was a total waste of time, and they need to concentrate on Win32 as by the time they supported either in a meaningfull wa, nobody would care about Win16 anymore.

Of course I was shouted down and flamed for my entirely accurate predicition. So of course huge amounts of time where wasted in the early days concentrating doing a really good Win16 emulation, that nobody could care less about for a decade now.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302492)

Sometimes it sucks to be right.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302792)

Lots of 32-bit applications directly or indirectly depended on win16. I remember even on "32 bit" Windows 95/98/ME, the multimedia stack and OLE was almost pure 16-bit, If you wanted to use audio or embed pictures into compound documents, you were embedding 16-bit objects. And then there were drivers...

Even today, Windows 7 can run 16-bit code (scarily, 16-bit code can bypass security checks). You can turn off 16-bit support, if you research it.

Re:What? (4, Informative)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302888)

Even today, Windows 7 can run 16-bit code (scarily, 16-bit code can bypass security checks). You can turn off 16-bit support, if you research it.

The 64bit version of Vista and 7 cannot run 16bit code, actually. (Can't run the installer for Command & Conquer, for example) Wine now supports that part of the Windows legacy better than Windows itself.

Re:What? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303912)

M$ is doing that to try to force the few people who had useful 16 bit software to throw it away so they'd finally spend money on newer stuff. There is no reason why they couldn't do something like Dosbox to keep 16 bit apps running on Win7 64. Dosbox already ran dos-era apps better in 32 bits windows than the native cmd.exe did.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303154)

nobody would care about Win16 anymore.

I care about Win16. The one thing I use Wine for is to run a 16-bit Windows application.

Re:What? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304070)

You're almost certainly not alone in this. A lot of small businesses that I've come across have had some custom VB4 app that they depended on. A few of them have even kept Win 3.11 machines around to run it (Win 3.11 runs really fast on a 200MHz Pentium). Since about five years ago, it's been more likely that these apps will run on *NIX with WINE than on a recent version of Windows.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304048)

15 years got them the ability to run most apps that required Windows 2000, quite a few that required XP, as well as apps using the old Win16 APIs. How long did it take Microsoft to get to the same place?

wait what? (0, Offtopic)

chibiace (898665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302110)

huh when did we get to v1.0?

Re:wait what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302168)

If you don't know, you're not part of the "we" that got anywhere.

Re:wait what? (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302288)

Do we need to explain to you how a hyperlink works too? hint: it's the first one in the summary.

Re:wait what? (1)

chibiace (898665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302370)

hyper.. link..?

Re:wait what? (2, Funny)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302936)

Dude, Chibi Ace is almost as cute as Chibi Luffy. c|:0D

The Wrong Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302140)

Maybe it helped some who wanted to run Windows app on Linux, but you know, you know, it's the wrong way to go about. Linux has now become a force in the industry. Encourage them to write "native" software.

Re:The Wrong Way (4, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302162)

It's a chicken and egg scenario.

Re:The Wrong Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302870)

Oops! Sorry but I accidentally fat-fingered a "-1 Offtopic" when I was about to moderate you "+1 Insightful."

I've already sent an e-mail asking for my mistake to be reversed. In the mean time, if you have extra mod points do this guy a favour and up-mod him -- this isn't the first time my clumsiness has mis-moderated somebody. Sorry! :/

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303196)

I've already sent an e-mail asking for my mistake to be reversed.

Just post a comment in the discussion (under your normal UID) and your mis-mod will be nuked. Unless of course your really, really need to mod that comment, but honestly it ain't that important!

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302178)

Yeah, Linux is a major force in the industry but good luck getting Linux ports of obscure software. For example, a business I worked with about three years ago would have been a perfect target for mass Linux adoption except for the fact that nearly all their computers needed an obscure, proprietary program that the developers had been long gone but it was needed to interact with some legacy hardware for controlling their aging magnetic entry system. Had WINE supported that program we would have ~30 computers now running Linux and the business saving money, but because WINE didn't run that program well enough, they decided to stick with Windows.

Linux has a good office suite, great hardware support, decent usability, very easy installation, but lacks a lot of specialty software that is a make-or-break program for many businesses.

Re:The Wrong Way (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302292)

About five years ago my employer introduced a web app for time sheets which would only work in IE. The new version works fine in generic web browsers and our thinking on this is that enough users wanted it on the mac that they were forced to fix their application.

A lot of development is now happening for iPhone and Android platforms which are sort of BSD and Linux respectively so I think Microsoft is losing slowly, but there is no one winner, which is probably good too.

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304274)

Well, actually the Wine project management sabotages progress on key projects, e.g. Saferdisc protection [winehq.org] and DIB Engine [winehq.org] .

Re:The Wrong Way (5, Interesting)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302188)

Native software is fine, but a compatibility layer won't hurt. In fact, WINE is great for running legacy, closed-source software whose development is long dead with no native build going to be made.

Re:The Wrong Way (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302208)

More aggresively -- WINE is one of the best ways for Linux to embrace, extend, and extinguish -- beat Redmond at their own game.

In fact, WINE is great for running legacy, closed-source software whose development is long dead with no native build going to be made.

Which is funny because one of the traditional perceived strengths of Windows is its backwards compatibility.

Re:The Wrong Way (3, Interesting)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302262)

It's even funnier if you consider the option of running WINE on Windows: http://wiki.winehq.org/WineOnWindows [winehq.org]

Re:The Wrong Way (1, Flamebait)

uprise78 (1256084) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302340)

WTF? Linux extinguishing something? Beating Redmond at it's own game? What game might that be? The last one is the best of all: the comment isn't talking about new Windows builds, it's talking about Linux builds that aren't gonna happen. It ALREADY works on Windows. *head explodes from ridiculous comment*

Re:The Wrong Way (0, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302424)

Linux extinguishing something? Beating Redmond at it's own game? What game might that be?

I already told you, dumbass - embracing, extending, and extinguishing!

The last one is the best of all: the comment isn't talking about new Windows builds, it's talking about Linux builds that aren't gonna happen. It ALREADY works on Windows.

Yes, it works on Windows. So do a million viruses and a browser that gives your credit card numbers to every link you click on! So wouldn't it make sense to run the legacy stuff, the stuff your cowardly inept employer wont give up, on a system that dosen't become chock full of shitware within an hour in the hands of the average office monkey? Wouldn't that be neat?

Sheesh! What is wrong with you, man? I'm surprised your mother didn't flush your fetal body down the toilet or stuff it in a potato sack with chloroform and drown it in the bathtub!

Re:The Wrong Way (2)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303056)

If it runs all the legacy stuff, why do you think it won't run the million viruses?

Re:The Wrong Way (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303614)

Wine was testes for virus compability not so long ago. Turns out they use obscure APIs that Wine doesn't support yet, so most of them don't run. Of course, as Wine gets better, more will.

I would just disable the filetype association of .exe files with Wine, and run the necessary apps with a menu entry like "wine app.exe", so any virus those employees downloaded would simply sit there.

Re:The Wrong Way (3, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302504)

Linux already extinguished mainstream BSD. It did as much to kill SCO as the lawsuit. It killed HURD. Face it: Linux got critical mass first, and wiped out a lot of the open-source competition. By Android, it's likely to kill a bunch of cellphone OSs, maybe even Palm, possibly even iPhoneOS.

Which is not, in fact, a bad thing. If anything, we need to unify Linux even more, so it can start killing some commercial systems. I'd love to see it wipe out the commercial Unices. Hell, I wouldn't cry over it killing OS X. And I've already planned the party for when it kills Windows.

Re:The Wrong Way (4, Informative)

mixmasta (36673) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302568)

Don't get too far ahead of yourself, the only ones dead so far are SCO and HURD.

Re:The Wrong Way (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302990)

Don't get too far ahead of yourself, the only ones dead so far are SCO and HURD.

And IRIX and SVR4.

Re:The Wrong Way (4, Insightful)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303050)

The way things are going, Solaris will be dead soon too (especially if Oracle keeps doing what its been doing)

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302582)

I'd love to see it wipe out the commercial Unices.

Good point - After all, SGI shelved IRIX and went Linux.

OS X == Mainstream BSD Dimwit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302838)

What does OS X have now? 10 times the marketshare of Linux?

Yeah, keep talking smack dipshit.

Re:The Wrong Way (2, Funny)

Jappus (1177563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303692)

By Android, it's likely to kill a bunch of cellphone OSs, maybe even Palm, possibly even iPhoneOS.

But under the hood, Palm WebOS is Linux. Mhhhm, perhaps it's just my deranged mind, but I can't help but wonder whether that would legally classify as suicide, fratricide or maybe even cannibalism...

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304320)

Wine is also available for Mac OS X [winehq.org] .

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302358)

And OS/2's support for Windows 3.1 is said to have doomed it.

-uso.

Re:The Wrong Way (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302612)

Yes, because it was too good.

WINE applications are definitely second-class citizens on linux. Sure, it works, but it doesn't remove the incentive for a native-application.

(Look at Mac - where Classic worked for MacOS 9 under 10, but everyone knew it was definitely second-best; or now how Carbon was second-best compared to Cocca.)

But with OS/2, developers could release a windows version and say that's it, done.

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304090)

It was certainly a contributing factor, but OS/2's lack of support for Win32 and the lack of good cross-platform toolkits at the time probably contributed more. In the Win16 days, you could write a Win16 app and it ran natively on OS/2 and Windows 3.x. That's great - you get the OS/2 market for free. If your app would benefit from being a full 32-bit app, then you could use the native OS/2 APIs. Then came Windows 95, with a new set of (mostly backwards compatible) 32-bit APIs, which weren't supported by OS/2. The largest market was still Win3.x, so most developers stuck with supporting that, using win16 plus the subset of win32 that worked with win32s, just doing two builds. When enough people had Windows 95 installed, they moved to win32, and excluded OS/2. There was no good way of supporting Windows 95 and OS/2. Now, there are good cross-platform toolkits which let you target all of the major platforms with just some minor UI tweaks for each one.

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302554)

I can't help but question the continued usefulness of Wine, though. I recently tried to run some apps in Wine and failed. I ended up just running the app (and several others) in a VM (VirtualBox) - a no-muss, no-fuss solution.

Do we actually need Wine anymore?

Re:The Wrong Way (3, Informative)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302600)

You can't (legally) run a Windows VM without paying Microsoft for the OS.

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302906)

Why are you assuming he didn't pay for his VM?

Re:The Wrong Way (3, Informative)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302956)

He's not. He's saying it's an extra cost to consider.

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303932)

It is probably cheaper to buy an OEM copy of XP than pay someone to try and get it working in Wine.

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303684)

Wine isn't only a way to run Win32 binaries under Linux/Mac/etc, it's also useful if companies want to port their software over without a large budget: they can link their existing code to WineLib implementation of the WINAPI. They can even have a mix of architectures: Win32 for the core using WineLib, and then a small module with Linux specific calls for better integration with the system.

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303964)

I can't help but question the continued usefulness of Wine, though. I recently tried to run some apps in Wine and failed. I ended up just running the app (and several others) in a VM (VirtualBox) - a no-muss, no-fuss solution.

Do we actually need Wine anymore?

Oblivion is pretty playable inside Wine, even on my 2008-era processor and some people have got Fallout 3 going, though I haven't.
To the best of my knowledge - and I did a lot of Googling when Windows 7 ate itself the other week - no-one has ever got either game working inside a VM, it's just too resource-intensive.

Re:The Wrong Way (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304098)

And I had the opposite experience. I recently wanted to try running a Win32 game on my Mac, and found that it worked perfectly with WINE. Much less effort than trying to install Windows in a VM - and using a lot less RAM than running another complete OS for one app. Not to mention cheaper - I don't have a Windows license anymore, and I didn't want to spend £100 or so to play a free game... Since I had WINE installed, I tried it with a few other win32 apps I had. The only one that I had problems with was mingw, and it does some deeply horrible things.

Re:The Wrong Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303986)

Especially true for games, many of which are great even 10 years after but that never will be ported or remade. I usually make the point of comparing these old games (not only on Win32, but many other platforms that can run in MAME, DOSBox, various others emulators) to media or documents, not applications. They are exactly like old Word documents, that needs another application to open them - we have OpenOffice.org for that example. For regular applications, it's enough to write one replacement - for games, you would have to write it each time, much better to supply the application that can "play" the media. Where people miss this point is that they don't think of Windows as the application that runs this particular media, or document.

It's for many of us an extremely important feature to some time be able to play Grim Fandango again. Wine is in that regard, one of the more important projects there is, and I wish that some larger distributions would see this and get more behind it.

Re:The Wrong Way (2, Insightful)

Jahf (21968) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302272)

Sadly, while isn't a fart in the wind like it was 17 years ago, Linux most definitely is not a major force in the desktop computing world. MOST of what people use Wine for is just that: desktop computing. Market share is a teensy blip for that type of Linux computing ... and the places where it IS much bigger tend to spend virtually nothing on commercial software.

All that forcing people to write natively to Linux instead of using Wine will do is starve those people of apps and slowly push them to Windows.

I'm in that boat. I spent nearly a decade doing technical marketing and sales engineer work for Linux products including desktop environments. Nowadays? I do that work for networking gadgets instead and have zero Linux systems active. I may have another one soon, but it will be in the form of a phone.

I'd LOVE it if Linux had made inroads, and I did my share on helping with that, but it didn't. And at some point you -do- need to find a system that will work in your corporate and social environments.

"emulator"? (1)

TheCyberShadow (1429099) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302190)

* frowns at emulator [winehq.org] tag *

Re:"emulator"? (0)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302222)

well, it's emulating a platform API (as opposed to hardware)
call it a compatibility or translation layer if you wish
but it is an emulator
(just not the regular (slow) kind)

Re:"emulator"? (3, Informative)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302246)

It doesn't emulate a platform API. It implements a platform API.

Re:"emulator"? (0)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302374)

It (re-)implements a platform API
it seeks to equal (and / or surpass) the canonical implementation
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/emulate [wiktionary.org]

anyway, I've lost this
Hackers are nasty people who break into systems
English = en/us
Wine is not an emulator

Re:"emulator"? (2, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303024)

It doesn't emulate a platform API. It implements a platform API.

it's stateless?

Re:"emulator"? (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304242)

So that would make it a simulator? You know like when an airplane simulator "implements" the physical qualities of real flight.

Re:"emulator"? (1)

TheCyberShadow (1429099) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302254)

I know, I was referring to the same line Wine folks have been saying, and the recursive acronym [winehq.org] (Wine Is Not an Emulator).

Re:"emulator"? (1)

obi (118631) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302274)

Only if you call Mono an emulator too. Or if you call Glib/GTK or QT on Windows a "Linux emulator".

I see Wine as an (alternative) implementation of the win32/win64 API and libs.

Re:"emulator"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302386)

can we call MONO an abomination please?

Re:"emulator"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302490)

I don't agree with this opinion, but 'abomination' made me think of another term for Wine.

WIAA - Wine is an Approximation.

Re:"emulator"? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302416)

Mono is implementing an (half-)open standard in a platform specific way. Wine developers are emulating the Win32 API by reverse-engineering it and replacing it with a minimally understood code equivalent that simulates the original intent. I don't know what to say about GTK and Qt, as these are cross-platform APIs that bear no similarity to either.

In summary, I don't know what to call Wine. It's not an implementation (an impl. requires an open interface or spec)., and it's not an emulator.

Re:"emulator"? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302748)

It's a reverse-engineered implementation of the Win32 (and now 64) API. Your requirement for an implementation is erroneously strict.

Re:"emulator"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302928)

Software cannot be implemented [wikipedia.org] without adhering to a set of defined rules. In Wine's case, there are no rules, only an end result. It has no adherence to correctness, or to strict exactness, or to a specification, only to similar compatibility. It's a product; a remade product with a differing goal: to be open.

Re:"emulator"? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302314)

An emulator is any software which models a piece of digital hardware, exactly in the ideal case. (If it's something analog you're after, you approximate it by writing a simulator instead.)

  You cannot "emulate" a software platform, you just rewrite it. Wine is a Windows API for Linux, BSD, and Mac. It's more like a clone than anything.

Re:"emulator"? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302328)

I'd like to throw in the word "interpreter" just to annoy you.

Re:"emulator"? (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302654)

I'll toss in the word "Translator" to make it more precise.

Re:"emulator"? (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304102)

It is an adaptor that makes one set of APIs (POSIX + X11) appear like another (Win32). In most of computer science, we call that an emulator. It is not a CPU emulator (which makes one CPU appear like another), or a full system emulator (which makes one complete set of hardware appear like another), but it is an emulator. Oh, and it doesn't just reimplement the APIs, it also provides a run time loader and ABI compatibility. *NIX systems can't natively load Windows PE files...

Re:"emulator"? (0)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302320)

Does it run Crysis YET?

Re:"emulator"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302408)

Linux has glxgears. (Some people say that it's not a benchmark, though)

Re:"emulator"? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303174)

Indeed, that's the purpose of qemu. As clips on youtube of wine running on an N900 attest. (x86 --> ARM)

Re:"emulator"? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304186)

Unfortunately for the N900, QEMU implements the emulation a bit far down the stack. You compile WINE as a native x86 app, then any system calls that it makes are translated to native system calls. You don't have to emulate the kernel, but you do have to run all of the userland stuff in the emulator. Fortunately, the client-server design of X11 means that this excludes most of the graphics stack, including OpenGL.

A better design, used by Transitive and others, moves the emulation barrier right up the API stack. You take all of the WINE headers and (automatically) generate a stub function that thunks out of the emulator and calls the native one. This is pretty easy to do for most functions, because the calling convention tells you where the arguments are. It's more effort for variadic functions, but generally these are wrappers around a few non-variadic functions, so you can leave them inside the emulator on the first pass. If you're really clever, then you can tweak the stdarg.h macros used by the ARM version of WINE so that they grab the registers / stack values from the emulator. The easiest way of implementing this kind of thing is to just have the stub versions that run inside the emulator issue an interrupt which QEMU uses to jump to some native code, then have stubs outside of the emulator (but in the same process, so pointers work between the two) construct the ARM function call from the arguments in the QEMU registers and stack. This is a bit harder when mixing big and little endian code, because you need to worry about the format of data on the heap.

The benefit of this approach is that almost all of the WINE code becomes native code. This reduces the amount that needs emulating, which reduces the amount of time spent in emulated code and reduces the amount of RAM needed to cache translated code.

15 years from 0.0 to 1.0... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302290)

That's a 0.1 version increase every 18 months, no?

So they've got a year to get rid of that darn "Candidate" tag if they wanna stay on schedule!

Wow !! big news... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302346)

...to about 2500 people who actually use this stuff. All the rest of us are just, "ugh".

Re:Wow !! big news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302410)

Pulling numbers out of your ass sure is a fun way to troll isn't it?
That's what me and my 1,337 friends on facebook think anyway.

*BSD is Dying (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302402)

It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:*BSD is Dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304012)

OMG I thought *BSD is dying trolls were dead! But it seems they are undead! :D

I'm waiting for WINE 2.0 (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302406)

It's supposed to provide better emulation, everything redesigned. Now for the first time, WINE/BEER will be 100% Italian free and protected from Italian code execution attacks.

But... (3, Funny)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302438)

Does it run Linux [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:But... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302862)

Does it run Linux [wikipedia.org]?

The link to WUBI is is somewhat inappropriate: WUBI is an installer that installs Linux in a file hosted on a Windows filesystem using something that works as a Windows installer (and creating a Windows uninstaller for the Linux installation.) But it doesn't run Linux under Windows.

So if you want a Linux under Windows distribution to talk about running under WINE what you really want is more Portable Ubuntu Remix [demonccc.com.ar] , not WUBI.

But Windows 7 Is So Schweet! (-1, Offtopic)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302558)

There was a time and place when I was hoping for WINE to get solid. I hated Windows XP, and I hated Windows Vista. I used CrossOver Office hoping for the day that WINE would finally work. But now I have Windows 7 x64. It has been the best operating system I have ever used. It's compatible with all the programs I use. It is stable, and when there's a crash, it's usually only the apps crashing. I use Microsoft Security Essentials, MalwareBytes Anti-Malware, and Norton Internet Security 2010 to keep my computer free of spyware. But aside from a sketchy program I downloaded and ran with administrator privilege, my computer hasn't been compromised. Other than doing that, my computer has been fine. It works really well with multiple monitors and outputting stuff to my TV via HDMI. The GUI toys are nice, of course.

Long rant short, WINE is solving a problem I don't need an answer for anymore.

Re:But Windows 7 Is So Schweet! (4, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302620)

Believe it or not, WINE isn't meant for people who are using Windows... It's great that Windows suits your purposes, I'm happy that you are happy but otherwise don't give a damn. However, it is naive (and terribly offtopic) to suggest that nobody needs to run Windows applications on non-Windows platforms anymore.

Re:But Windows 7 Is So Schweet! (2, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302916)

My [syntap.com] god [ucla.edu] , Wine [winehq.org] has [tatanka.com.br] no [7-zip.org] use [utorrent.com] whatsoever [playonlinux.com]

Re:But Windows 7 Is So Schweet! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303728)

Why run uTorrent in Wine when there's plenty of perfectly good native torrent apps?

Re:But Windows 7 Is So Schweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303826)

I did this for a while too, I can't remember my reasoning as to why. They list Wine as a supported target though and test against it, which I think is pretty cool.

Re:But Windows 7 Is So Schweet! (1)

i23098 (723616) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303942)

Why run uTorrent in Wine when there's plenty of perfectly good native torrent apps?

Because there is no native app so light and yet with a simple GUI and friendly use :p
The only uTorrent replacement I can suggest is kTorrent, that is not so light, but it's very good :D

Re:But Windows 7 Is So Schweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304146)

Not if you want to use uTP.

Re:But Windows 7 Is So Schweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32304184)

because there are none that compare to uTorrent. EOF.

Re:But Windows 7 Is So Schweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302972)

However, it is naive (and terribly offtopic) to suggest that nobody needs to run Windows applications on non-Windows platforms anymore.

I could not agree with you more. Except there are a fuck-ton of conceded Linux zealots who would claim otherwise. Friends of yours?

Re:But Windows 7 Is So Schweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32303424)

the conditionals in your statement made me laugh

1. when there's a crash it's usually the apps crashing... duh, just like on every other NT based windows. what's new here?
2. use microsoft security essentials, malwarebytes anti-malware, norton internet security 2010 to keep my.... so windows is the perfect operating system but yet it needs these nasty crutches?
3. asid from a sketchy program I downloaded and ran with admin priv... hmm, I think this explains it all right here. it WAS compromised because you ran something you shouldn't have to run as admin. so much for your 'best operating system' theory. you basically admitted your computer was compromised.

Great Job, but ... (1)

udippel (562132) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302586)

... a tad late.
While I was fiddling with some Windows applications over the last 10 years, to make them work in wine (not too high a success rate, :( ); these days thanks to SUN Microsystems (anyone remembers??) I fire up my Virtualbox, and chances are, the application works.

Has one made some comparison of speed, resource usage, of major applications between running in wine and running in Virtualbox? Google has a few hits, though of old age.

Re:Great Job, but ... (3, Interesting)

shiftless (410350) | more than 4 years ago | (#32302656)

Apps are faster in Wine than VMWare. I tested Eve Online in both and it was noticeably faster in WINE. Both paled in comparison to running natively under WinXP on the same platform however.

Re:Great Job, but ... (1)

AusIV (950840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303112)

I can't imagine many applications where the overhead of an entire virtualized operating system would be less resource intensive than running the application with a thin API layer. It might be necessary for some applications that don't work on wine, but I can't imagine it would be fruitful if the application functions properly on Wine.

Re:Great Job, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302664)

Some people don't like to buy, or "pirate" a copy of MS Windows just to run one or two apps that they "need". Having to fire up an emulator and run an entire other operating system, just to run one piece of software is not efficient.

Unfortunately, for some software, WINE isn't enough. But, for many people it is.

Resourcewise, it is going to be slower, use more, etc. to emulate an entire computer and run another OS, than to merely implement an API layer.

Re:Great Job, but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32302962)

How exactly is running an application on an operating system on top of another operating system going to be faster than just running the application on top of one operating system without the second middleman?

Virtualization works fine if you're trying to contain something like virtual servers or if stuff doesn't work in Wine but Wine should really be your first choice in order to properly integrate with the OS.

versionings speed (1)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32303876)

15 years to get to 1.0 means a speed of a 0.0666 increase in the version number per year. This extrapolates to 3 more years to get to 1.2. So it's not surprising to see a RC only two years later.

(this post just nominated for the "worst use of extrapolation 2010" award)

Re:versionings speed (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304190)

It seems to me that the wine development process does not really scale well but they use also test based development and that seems to speed up the development cycle. Other aspects like the Dib Engine [winehq.org] are a governance nightmare of Wine. Though the patch is optional (has to be enabled) they didn't let it in although it supports some applications better and was a release target for 1.2. The Wine project management played Mornington Crescent with contributers for the DIB Engine for almost 10 years. It is a pity that no one ever started to fork Wine and improve project management.

Re:versionings speed (1)

Wildclaw (15718) | more than 4 years ago | (#32304328)

Except of course that 1.0 and 1.2 are not real numbers. They are in fact two numbers separated by a dot. With real numbers 1.4 > 1.38. With version 1.4 1.38.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?