On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 08:50:12PM -0400, Ove Kaaven wrote:
>
> I don't know. This is the exact same argument that people used against
> creating and supporting Wine in the first place. If people had listened
> to it, we wouldn't have had Wine at all. I wouldn't have needed to build
> Wine packages for Debian.
But there's a huge difference. When Wine was started, there were Windows-only
apps that didn't have an equivalent in any other system (not even MSDOS). OTOH,
nowadays there isn't a single win64 app that doesn't have a 32-bit counterpart.
Things might change in the future (although I don't see this change happening
anytime soon), but currently there isn't any need for 64-bit apps in wine.
> Truth is, Linux has shown that you can succeed in a hostile and
> competitive computing world by *not* relying on world-domination
> tactics, but rather just work to make the system the best it can be, out
> of love for the system, rather than corporate demands for profitability.
> That is why Linux is still alive today, despite all the FUD and other
> attacks thrown at it: because money and market share didn't matter,
> nobody could pull the plug on Linux, and so it lived on, unlike OS/2.
>
> Once you lose the vision of just making the best system you can just
> because you can, you lose what makes it great, what sets it apart from
> all the monopolists. That it's just a great system, free, unrestricted,
> and without anyone telling you what you can and can't do with your own
> computer. Is denying users 64-bit support for political reasons any
> better than, say, DVD region coding, just because it's about *our* world
> domination plan, not *theirs*?
>
> Linux's time will come, but it should be on its own terms, when Linux is
> ready for the world, and the world is ready for it. Which is hopefully
> soon, but rushing in with manipulative tactics will do more harm than good.
Sorry for not making it clear, but I'm not asking to *deny* users 64-bit
support; users themselves don't want it (at least not yet). And this trend is
going to continue for a long time since Microsoft has decided to ditch the
64-bit version of Vista (completely unavailable in retail boxes). Currently
nobody can sanely provide a win64-only game and not expect it'll meet huge
failure in the market.
OTOH, if we provide win64, game vendors will be very happy that they can target
all platforms with a single binary, stablishing win64 as the standard.
This *only* benefits game vendors and Microsoft, not our users. And ultimately
it even harms our users needs. If there was a realistic need for our users to
have win64, I wouldn't be advocating against it!
Let's take a compromise: how about not providing win64 *untill* there is a
realistic need for it? I.e. when our users want to run application XYZ
which is available on win64 but not on win32 ?
What I'd like to avoid is providing this feature "just because", without
analising first wether it's necessary at all.
> First of all, Microsoft isn't going to lie down and die anytime soon,
> and second, it doesn't matter who wins the 64-bit battle. In the end,
> Linux "wins" as long as it stays true to itself and its ideals.
>
> >P.S: Anyway, our users won't find any need for win64 untill win64-only
> >applications start to appear, and this is currently blocked by Microsoft
> >inability to provide usable 64-bit systems. So we can easily live without
> >that..
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't underestimate MS. But in any case, it's not
> a call I'd like to make.
Look at the facts. It's all out there:
- MS refuses to provide vista64 in retail boxes (out of incompetence,
whatsoever; doesn't matter to us). Only a ridiculously low number of
users will migrate to win64.
- Nobody can put a win64-only game in the market, since they will loose all
userbase. This includes Microsoft itself: it'd be contradictory to
launch a win64 killer app given their refusal to ship in retail boxes.
OTOH, I'd expect a vista32 / dx10 killer app from Microsoft soon. But this
isn't relevant.
- None of our users will need win64 emulation untill vista+1 is out. I'd
expect their first "proper" 64-bit OS (i.e. in retail boxes, and replacing
win32 completely in preinstalls) to happen before the 64-bit transition
window ends (unless they're stupid). This brings us to late 2008. By
that time, win64-only applications will *begin* to proliferate.
I suppose we'll have released lenny by end of 2008. In case we haven't (big
failure in our part), at that point win64 in wine would stop being a problem and
begin being something useful. So my request can be translated into "not
providing win64 before end of 2008" rather than "with lenny".
Btw, I suppose you have read this essay which is very related to our discussion;
if you haven't, I strongly recommend it:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html
--
Robert Millan
My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
