Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 09:17:48 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Sedore <cmsedore@mailbox.syr.edu> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: WINE (was: Uncle Sam, got a million bucks?) Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95.980309090330.24074B-100000@rodan.syr.edu> In-Reply-To: <19980309133636.38119@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Mon, 9 March 1998 at 2:27:50 +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > >> Wine has always required more than a "little push", it's required a > >> Saturn rocket up the ass. When compared to real solutions like SoftPC > >> from Insignia solutions, it's not even close to being sufficient for > >> the intended purpose (running popular Win95 binaries, in case people > >> forgot) and I doubt that it ever will be. > > > > I agree with Jordan on this one. Even quadrupling my time estimates, > > I come out with under 3 years for a small 5 man team to make a WIN32 > > capable of running MicroSoft Office. The 5 coders would have to be > > *serious* about getting the job done. The WINE project, though well > > intentioned, just doesn't seem very serious to me. 8-(. > > OK. This agrees with what I've seen. Maybe they're just not the > world's best hackers. Is anybody interested in doing better? What > are the real problems with doing it right? It seems to me that the > most difficult one is getting documentation, but even a big API is > still finite. Comments? > Microsoft "updates" the API too frequently. Each service pack adds a new function, or a slightly different behaviour to an existing one. If I may offer my opinion, I agree with the poster who noted that what we need is an alternative. In the US, we have a Microsoft monopoly, but MS is going to have much more trouble in India, China, former SU, etc--they simply do not have the capital to invest in MS technologies. I'd like to see an lightweight X11 replacement (eg photon), and apps to run with it. A FreeBSD that ran (with GUI and some apps) on an 8MB 486-66 would be a killer. Cost is not an impossible barrier--we need to achieve $30/seat for OS plus apps. The other side of this problem is turnover costs. During the next US economic downturn, I wonder if companies will continue to ride the 3 year hardware replacement bandwagon. I know that my employer (Syracuse U) cannot do it now. Companies have had extra thick margins and thus been able to afford replacement schedules which are a little silly. The other piece of this that's scary is Microsoft's licensing strategy. They've (at least for large institutions) moved away from the traditional notion of selling you software--they sell you the licenses plus "maintenance" to get you the next version. You wind up with a computing environment that costs you $100-$150 per seat annually for software. Add in $500/year (3 year turnover) for hardware, and you're talking about $600-$650 per seat per year. Some large companies could afford to fund the development of the OS and the apps in-house for what they're currently paying MS for software. Very much IMHO, what's needed is a refined vision, about $1-2m in venture capital, and a nice quiet building out in the country. (I like to code where the population density is <20 people per square mile :) -Chris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.3.95.980309090330.24074B-100000>