Re: AW: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003
Hi, what do you think about a wine branch that contains all available patches? There should be a list with all those patches and as far as possible information what a patch fixes/breaks and what would be required to get it into the main wine. And it would be nice if the action of patches can be seen by fixmes but that would require a lot of work I think and is therefore optional. And please don't understand me wrong, I am not volunteering for this job as I'm currently busy. But if someone else volunteers for maintaining these things, would they be officially accepted and get the required space and bandwidth from winehq.org? cu KGJ
AW: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003
>For the *weekly* application list, who is going to compile it? Wine is>not Microsoft, therefore they do not have access to something along>the lines of Microsoft's Compatibility Lab (and I think not even>Microsoft itself could release this weekly list).Eventually we could talk to the application maintainers (as my self) to provide a weekly state (via mail ev.) of their maintaned app. Regarding to the application rating in the appdb. Just list all the apps with a gold state. It also whold give a good overview for which apps wine is currently ready and it whould also be a good monitor of regression issues.Roland>- Ursprüngliche Mail >Von: Stephen Eilert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>An: Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>CC: wine-devel@winehq.com>Gesendet: Samstag, den 16. September 2006, 20:11:24 Uhr>Betreff: Re: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003>I like the deadline idea, but I do think they've got this already,>just not in terms of working applications, but subsystems.>For the *weekly* application list, who is going to compile it? Wine is>not Microsoft, therefore they do not have access to something along>the lines of Microsoft's Compatibility Lab (and I think not even>Microsoft itself could release this weekly list).>Furthermore, applications have to be legally purchased to be tested,>as far as I know. I'm not a [wine]developer, but I think you have>absolutely no idea of the amount of effort you are talking about.>>There is Wine Application Database. I've contributed one entry myself.>Not much, I know, but at least it is a start.>>>>Stephen>>>>On 9/16/06, Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>>>>> >You want stable software, don't you?>> Yes but not for the price of developing 10 years for a software.>>>>>> >And break other Applications.>> Not urgently>>>> Hey guys can't anybody see the reason? The wine project (or the finish of>> itself) could bring linux the breakthrough. I know a lot of people who asks> >as first question: Is this or the other app working on linux? Then I will> >think about a migration.>>>> Yes, faster development is paid by a less of stability. But is wine>> currently stable? By many tests with windows apps could I recognize that it>> is not ever!>>>> We should make a weekly public list of currently working applications (out>> of the box). I strongly think this is the measurement of the development>> progress of wine. This is is also the only thing users are interested in! So>> if the developers has a huge effort to develop things in wine but the count>> of working apps is not increasing over the time so its a strong indicator>> that something goes wrong. Think about commercial software dev projects they>> have milestones and deadlines and they have to fulfil it. Why not making>> hard milestones and a hard deadline which the project itself can measure>> against it . Lets say the deadline of a version 1.0 is end of next year>> (2008-01-01). So if everybody has this deadline in brain, it meight make the>> whole thing a bit more efficient. Its easier to make hard priority>> decisions.>>>> Roland>>>>>>>> >- Ursprüngliche Mail >> >Von: Detlef Riekenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>>> >An: Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> >CC: Jim White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; wine-devel@winehq.com>> >Gesendet: Samstag, den 16. September 2006, 19:16:34 Uhr>> >Betreff: Re: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003>>>> >>> >On Sa, 2006-09-16 at 06:34 +, Roland Kaeser wrote:>> >> Why don't just accept the code?>> >You want stable software, don't you?>> >>> >> There is enough time later to make it more "beautiful" or correct it>> >> to a better quality.>> >Who will do it later?>> >Nobody!>> >>> >> But for the moment, some of the code directly allows important apps to>> >> work.>> >>> >And break other Applications.>> >>> >>> >-->> >>> >By by ... Detlef>>
Re: AW: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003
On Saturday 16 September 2006 10:54, Roland Kaeser wrote: > >And break other Applications. > > Not urgently Depends on the application, no? Try to get the latest and greatest programs working, you run a strong risk of breaking old programs and games. People still do play/use old games/programs, so you'd immediately alienate them. Try to fix/hack them to work, you run the risk of breaking newer programs. In the end, you'll need to do a proper implementation to get most stuff working anyway. Why waste time with hacks? > Hey guys can't anybody see the reason? The wine project (or the finish of > itself) could bring linux the breakthrough. Not with code hacked up the yin-yang. That'd be a one-way ticket to giving Linux/Wine the big "Unstable" badge. > I know a lot of people who asks > as first question: Is this or the other app working on linux? Then I will > think about a migration. And with a hacked-up code base, it'd be one or the other, or neither. But most likely not both. > Yes, faster development is paid by a less of stability. But is wine > currently stable? Wine is (almost) perfectly stable. It's just incomplete. Wine itself has rarely ever crashed on me. The only problems have arisen from its /unfinished/ WinAPI implementation. When it's complete, it'll ideally make Windows apps behave just as if they were on Windows. Using hacked code to make some programs work will almost certainly make sure other programs don't (with that list ever changing as more and more hacks are introduced). Is that stable? > We should make a weekly public list of currently working applications (out > of the box). That is what AppDB is really for. But there are tons of Windows apps, and very few people that can commit keeping up with the latest changes. And it's not as simple as what works out of the box. It depends on the hardware people have, their driver versions, kernel versions, etc. Then you have to figure that the different packages for different package managers can introduce their own problems/tweaks. > I strongly think this is the measurement of the development > progress of wine. This is is also the only thing users are interested in! Just because that's what users are interested in doesn't mean that's the most important thing. A proper, manageable codebase to get 90% of the apps working later is far more important for Wine than a hacked up codebase that gets maybe 40% of the apps working now (and causing a megaton of problems to try to make the rest work later). Do you want most apps to work in a while, or some apps to work now and most apps to work a long time from now (if ever)? And don't forget, everyone will have a different idea of which apps should work /now/. You complain about Wine taking so long to get most apps working. It'll be easilly 5 to 10 times longer to get most apps working if the codebase is mostly hacks.
Re: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003
I like the deadline idea, but I do think they've got this already, just not in terms of working applications, but subsystems. For the *weekly* application list, who is going to compile it? Wine is not Microsoft, therefore they do not have access to something along the lines of Microsoft's Compatibility Lab (and I think not even Microsoft itself could release this weekly list). Furthermore, applications have to be legally purchased to be tested, as far as I know. I'm not a [wine]developer, but I think you have absolutely no idea of the amount of effort you are talking about. There is Wine Application Database. I've contributed one entry myself. Not much, I know, but at least it is a start. Stephen On 9/16/06, Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You want stable software, don't you? Yes but not for the price of developing 10 years for a software. >And break other Applications. Not urgently Hey guys can't anybody see the reason? The wine project (or the finish of itself) could bring linux the breakthrough. I know a lot of people who asks as first question: Is this or the other app working on linux? Then I will think about a migration. Yes, faster development is paid by a less of stability. But is wine currently stable? By many tests with windows apps could I recognize that it is not ever! We should make a weekly public list of currently working applications (out of the box). I strongly think this is the measurement of the development progress of wine. This is is also the only thing users are interested in! So if the developers has a huge effort to develop things in wine but the count of working apps is not increasing over the time so its a strong indicator that something goes wrong. Think about commercial software dev projects they have milestones and deadlines and they have to fulfil it. Why not making hard milestones and a hard deadline which the project itself can measure against it . Lets say the deadline of a version 1.0 is end of next year (2008-01-01). So if everybody has this deadline in brain, it meight make the whole thing a bit more efficient. Its easier to make hard priority decisions. Roland >- Ursprüngliche Mail >Von: Detlef Riekenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >An: Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: Jim White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; wine-devel@winehq.com >Gesendet: Samstag, den 16. September 2006, 19:16:34 Uhr >Betreff: Re: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003 > >On Sa, 2006-09-16 at 06:34 +, Roland Kaeser wrote: >> Why don't just accept the code? >You want stable software, don't you? > >> There is enough time later to make it more "beautiful" or correct it >> to a better quality. >Who will do it later? >Nobody! > >> But for the moment, some of the code directly allows important apps to >> work. > >And break other Applications. > > >-- > >By by ... Detlef
AW: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003
>You want stable software, don't you?Yes but not for the price of developing 10 years for a software.>And break other Applications.Not urgentlyHey guys can't anybody see the reason? The wine project (or the finish of itself) could bring linux the breakthrough. I know a lot of people who asks as first question: Is this or the other app working on linux? Then I will think about a migration. Yes, faster development is paid by a less of stability. But is wine currently stable? By many tests with windows apps could I recognize that it is not ever!We should make a weekly public list of currently working applications (out of the box). I strongly think this is the measurement of the development progress of wine. This is is also the only thing users are interested in! So if the developers has a huge effort to develop things in wine but the count of working apps is not increasing over the time so its a strong indicator that something goes wrong. Think about commercial software dev projects they have milestones and deadlines and they have to fulfil it. Why not making hard milestones and a hard deadline which the project itself can measure against it . Lets say the deadline of a version 1.0 is end of next year (2008-01-01). So if everybody has this deadline in brain, it meight make the whole thing a bit more efficient. Its easier to make hard priority decisions.Roland>- Ursprüngliche Mail >Von: Detlef Riekenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>An: Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>CC: Jim White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; wine-devel@winehq.com>Gesendet: Samstag, den 16. September 2006, 19:16:34 Uhr>Betreff: Re: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003>>On Sa, 2006-09-16 at 06:34 +, Roland Kaeser wrote:>> Why don't just accept the code?>You want stable software, don't you?>>> There is enough time later to make it more "beautiful" or correct it>> to a better quality. >Who will do it later?>Nobody!>>> But for the moment, some of the code directly allows important apps to>> work.>>And break other Applications.>>>-- >>By by ... Detlef
Re: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003
On Sa, 2006-09-16 at 06:34 +, Roland Kaeser wrote: > Why don't just accept the code? You want stable software, don't you? > There is enough time later to make it more "beautiful" or correct it > to a better quality. Who will do it later? Nobody! > But for the moment, some of the code directly allows important apps to > work. And break other Applications. -- By by ... Detlef
Re: AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003
(Reformatted to bottom-posting) Roland Kaeser wrote: > >- Ursprüngliche Mail > >Von: Jim White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >An: Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >CC: wine-devel@winehq.com > >Gesendet: Freitag, den 15. September 2006, 19:41:45 Uhr > >Betreff: Re: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003 > > > >Roland Kaeser wrote: > > > >> Just tried to test install office 2003 on wine 0.9.21. But getting > >> already errors. I read in C't (german it magazine) that office 2003 > >> works on codeweavers. Can somebody declare me this? Does codeweavers > >> voluntary not provide the corrections to wine to sell their product? > >> Looks very strange to me. > >> ... > > > >Codeweavers version of Wine has changes that Alexandre deems > >unacceptable for the "clean" WineHQ tree. > > > >The Codeweavers Wine source is here: > > > >http://www.codeweavers.com/products/source/ > > > >Jim > Hello >Codeweavers version of Wine has changes that Alexandre deems >unacceptable for the "clean" WineHQ tree. If this is that way, it would be real a horror. Why are code patches which allows a huge major app (key application) to run on linux "unacceptable" (From point of view of the MS users). Do we here make trench warfares? Or are there quality conceivabilities which are completely unrealistic? Shouldn't we not see the major goal of wine? To run windows apps on linux? Not to have a few lines code a bit better quality etc. I think we don't have the choice to reject code. Be very very thankful for each line which is checked in!! I think some responsible persons are to deep in the code. They are looking just into the code but can't see the benefit of the code for the wine project itself. Why don't just accept the code? There is enough time later to make it more "beautiful" or correct it to a better quality. But for the moment, some of the code directly allows important apps to work. Roland This is a very old, very shrivelled chestnut. CodeWeavers' CrossOver Office is guaranteed to run a specific, limited list of program, including specified versions of Microsoft Office. It may, or may not, run other program. Having a limited list of supported program makes it feasible to include program-specific code and incomplete implementations of Windows API functions that could cause errors in other programs. WineHQ's doesn't have the "advantage" of limited focus. WineHQ does not include program-specific code. Its focus is a full and efficient implementation of the Windows API. Programs become supported by WineHQ as new parts of the Windows API are implemented and the implementations completed. Program-specific code would cause bloat and be difficult to maintain. Accepting inefficient code allow inefficiencies to build up and impact greatly on performance. That's not to say that WineHQ development isn't driven by the desire to support particular programs. It is, but the difference to CrossOver is that the code that is accepted into WineHQ is expected to work with all Windows program. ( There is a specific issue with the window management that can cause a problem for some 3D games, but that would involve another highly complex rewrite to fix so I think the previous sentence is reasonable. ) When WineHQ breaks a program that used to work it's usually a bug in new code that the test suite couldn't identify, not because the code to support one program is incompatible with another. To get the CrossOver solutions into WineHQ the program-specific code first has to be rewritten as an efficient, generic solution. While that may delay support of some programs in the WineHQ releases and source the long-term benefits for WineHQ are speed, reduced size and more supported programs. It's quite wrong to say that WineHQ can't afford to reject code. The reason it can and should reject code can be summed up in two words: open source. The open source model allows WineHQ to have very high standards because any user that needs support for specific programs can download the source, patch it and compile it themselves. In fact, that's how CrossOver works. It's a version from WineHQ patched for the supported programs. When CodeWeavers rewrite their program-specific patches into a generic solution that is committed to WineHQ they will also be able to update their tree with the generic solution. Program-specific patches are a maintenance overhead and the closer they are to the WineHQ tree the better. By keeping their tree closer to the WineHQ tree it will also be easier to use other patches committed to WineHQ. I'm sure that at certain times CrossOver is updated to a set of patches against a newer WineHQ version for those reasons. The CrossOffice source is publicly available at the URL Jim White gave. Patches sent for submission to WineHQ are available on the Wine patches list (gmane.comp.emulators.wine.patches) even if not in the WineHQ repository. Want the CrossOver program-specific c
AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003
>Are you a software developer of any kind? This is a professional open>source product, and we only allow the cleanest code in our tree. Wine>is one of the most impressive pieces of software I've ever had the>chance to work on. I, and all the other developers of Wine, do not>want hacks in the code base, and am very thankful they are not>allowed. If someone really wants an application to work, they can>spend time and effort on writing proper fixes for the Wine tree, as we>all do.Yes, I'm a software developer and I know from a uncountable amout of projects that perfect and absolute clean code is IMPOSSIBLE. Its always a calculation between the efforts and the expected results. Yes, You can write absolute (as far as this is generally possible) code but then wine will be arrive version 1.0 in 2020. Just think about the goal, users don't interst the coding quality of the sourcecode, they just want to run their windows apps on linux. I know a lot of people where have no idea about opensource. They just wan't to run their apps. And they wan't do it asap not after waiting 10 years. Look for all the alternate opensource project for properitary software, such as gimp,scribus,inkscape,openoffice,firefox,kdenlive,cinelerra,etc. Soon, the time will come where is no longer need for wine because the opensource apps are much better and more performant than actually the windows apps are. Don't You think wine (version 1.0) should be finished before this time?Roland>- Ursprüngliche Mail >Von: James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>An: Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>CC: Jim White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; wine-devel@winehq.com>Gesendet: Samstag, den 16. September 2006, 09:47:27 Uhr>Betreff: Re: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003>>On 9/15/06, Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Hello>> >Codeweavers version of Wine has changes that Alexandre deems>> >unacceptable for the "clean" WineHQ tree. If this is that way, it would be real a horror. Why are code patches which>> allows a huge major app (key application) to run on linux "unacceptable">> (From point of view of the MS users). Do we here make trench warfares? Or>> are there quality conceivabilities which are completely unrealistic?>> Shouldn't we not see the major goal of wine? To run windows apps on linux?>> Not to have a few lines code a bit better quality etc. I think we don't have>> the choice to reject code. Be very very thankful for each line which is>> checked in!! I think some responsible persons are to deep in the code. They>> are looking just into the code but can't see the benefit of the code for the>> wine project itself. Why don't just accept the code? There is enough time>> later to make it more "beautiful" or correct it to a better quality. But for>> the moment, some of the code directly allows important apps to work.Are you a software developer of any kind? This is a professional open>source product, and we only allow the cleanest code in our tree. Wine>is one of the most impressive pieces of software I've ever had the>chance to work on. I, and all the other developers of Wine, do not>want hacks in the code base, and am very thankful they are not>allowed. If someone really wants an application to work, they can>spend time and effort on writing proper fixes for the Wine tree, as we>all do.>>-- >James Hawkins
AW: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003
Hello>Codeweavers version of Wine has changes that Alexandre deems>unacceptable for the "clean" WineHQ tree.If this is that way, it would be real a horror. Why are code patches which allows a huge major app (key application) to run on linux "unacceptable" (From point of view of the MS users). Do we here make trench warfares? Or are there quality conceivabilities which are completely unrealistic? Shouldn't we not see the major goal of wine? To run windows apps on linux? Not to have a few lines code a bit better quality etc. I think we don't have the choice to reject code. Be very very thankful for each line which is checked in!! I think some responsible persons are to deep in the code. They are looking just into the code but can't see the benefit of the code for the wine project itself. Why don't just accept the code? There is enough time later to make it more "beautiful" or correct it to a better quality. But for the moment, some of the code directly allows important apps to work.Roland>- Ursprüngliche Mail >Von: Jim White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>An: Roland Kaeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>CC: wine-devel@winehq.com>Gesendet: Freitag, den 15. September 2006, 19:41:45 Uhr>Betreff: Re: Already Error while installing MS Office 2003>>Roland Kaeser wrote:>>> Just tried to test install office 2003 on wine 0.9.21. But getting>> already errors. I read in C't (german it magazine) that office 2003>> works on codeweavers. Can somebody declare me this? Does codeweavers>> voluntary not provide the corrections to wine to sell their product?>> Looks very strange to me.>> ...>>Codeweavers version of Wine has changes that Alexandre deems>unacceptable for the "clean" WineHQ tree.>>The Codeweavers Wine source is here:>>http://www.codeweavers.com/products/source/>>Jim
