__/ [dfj225@xxxxxxxxx] on Wednesday 15 February 2006 01:09 \__
> Peter Jensen wrote:
>> If the application is written correctly, the *code* actually runs
>> natively. Wine is just a translation library that simulates a Windows
>> API. There is no real benefit in porting the code to some other API
>> (QT, GTK, whatever) at this point. At least no performance benefit, or
>> anything most users would notice. Working with the actual developers
>> obviously helps, as they can then work out where they did something
>> non-optimal (which are the kinds of things that typically break Windows
>> apps at the next Windows version).
> Right. Poor choice of wording on my part. What I meant to say was, I
> wonder why they decided to not port to one of the standard Linux
> libraries. Like you said, there would be no real benefit other than not
> having a dependency on wine.
Since they will not GPL it, let alone publish any code (code.google.com may
suggest otherwise), the user might not mind implementation issues, provided
that it works. The question will remain: which distribution will be left out
of the loop or require extra libraries to be installed? Google have enough
money to ensure testing is done properly to guarantee full compatibility.
Anything else could anger users, who will in turn give up on Google's Web
services (potentially at least).
> I suppose the real thing that bugs me is the precedent that this has
> the potential to set. I would rather see developers use Qt or GTK than
> rely on wine and increase the spread of applications that some way rely
> on MS code.
When Linux becomes more popular, perhaps /then/ you could convince Google to
take projects from the ground up where Linux take precedence. For the time
being, we should be happy to at least have it ported (personal opinion).
Roy S. Schestowitz | /earth: file system full
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:00am up 29 days 1:01, 12 users, load average: 0.36, 0.46, 0.62
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine