John Summerfield wrote:
> Jim Elliott wrote:
>>> IMV it would be a Good Thing for IBM to ensure all its Windows
>>> desktop software runs under WINE. I'm sure the WINE project would
>>> welcome the input, and I'm sure that IBM has the expertise to
>>> resolve any problems, whether by changing WINE or by changing its
>>> own software.
>>
>> I think this would be a mistake as I would very much prefer that IBM
>> get most of our desktop software running under Linux (native). For
>> those that (for one reason or another) could or would not be ported to
>> Linux, WINE would be an option, but should not be the preferred path!
>
> I agree, but there is SmartSuite with, AFAIK, IBM has no intention of
> porting to Linux. I don't know how many users there are outside IBM, but
> I'd guess the market for SS on Linux is pretty miniscule now. Back in
> the late 90s I might have bought it (but then, given how well it ran on
> OS/2 maybe not), but now OOo does what I need, and it's cheaper even
> than the OEM version of SS for Windows I have.
>
> I figure if IBM gets _that_ working under WINE by changing WINE I
> speculate that WINE will become much more usable for non-IBM software
> too,
>
> I reckon that would be a win for all, including IBM which would earn
> some more brownie points.
ISTR that WINOS2 is the key thing that "killed" OS|2 by removing
the need to create "native" builds for OS|2 from various software
vendors; all M$ had to do was make the change to the WIN32 API
(and make sure it was obscure enough) and OS|2 could not run any
of the Win95 S/W.
There's been a debate for some time now whether WINE *should* be
pushed forward and become *the* mechanism for getting new apps
delivered to Linux. I'd have to come down on the side of those
who feel the WINE is useful but SHOULD NOT become "perfect"; we
would not want to make M$ the standard bearer in application
design.
Seriously, though, if we had a WINE-like tool for Windows that
could run Linux Apps on Windows w/o recompilation... now THAT
might be far more interesting since Linux is far less unstable
an API to code for (i.e. no "obfuscation"). If the better way
to distribute S/W means you develop on Linux (which is FAR less
costly than a Windows platform, thinking IDE/Compilers/etc) then
S/W vendors may start to consider Linux to be the primary target
platform to code for... and Windows becomes the step-child.
--
John R. Campbell Speaker to Machines [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Grace is sufficient so Joy was let go." - Heather L. Campbell
"Faith manages ... even though she didn't get promoted" - me
Why OS X? Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows
