| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Great but be carefulGreat but be carefulPosted Feb 2, 2009 13:09 UTC (Mon) by hozelda (guest, #19341)Parent article: Common Wine Myths
Putting aside the notion that wine will be able to closely mimic MS platform software (as opposed to implementing some published specs), the project can still market wine as actually being compliant with published standards (should they ever reach such a point) and maybe attract some Windows developers and ports that way ["we're more compliant than Microsfot"].
There are very real patent risks whenever you develop using technology/APIs invented/designed by a lover of patents that is threatened by you (FOSS); however, third-party (proprietary) developers may not mind making sure their already-built Windows apps work well on wine.
As long as wine and others don't encourage developers to target wine over, say, LSB, then I think the wine project is a great asset.
The following were written with mono in mind, but everyone should pay attention:
(Log in to post comments)
Great but be careful Posted Feb 2, 2009 18:22 UTC (Mon) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]
Want to add..
Interoperability is a two-way street. If Windows developers were using open source tools instead of things like MSVisStudio, their apps might just work off the bat with a clean implementation of the specs, instead of being married to the MS platform in undocumented (eg, buggy) ways. Of course, with open source build tools, they might not get as acceptable behavior on Windows in the first place.
This is why I stopped targeting Windows (the lock-in and MS dependency at every turn) and want Linux to displace Windows as the standard.
|
|
||||||||||||