CrossOver Plugin 1.0 Demo Version 196
jwnewman writes "CodeWeavers has released the Demo version of CrossOver plugin." I bought the regular version when it first came out, just to try it out. It's pretty impressive - I've only had some problems with it under Konqueror, but that's had more to do with my plugin setup. The demo version is a full version, but with nags in it. It's well worth checking out.
Programs Like These (Score:5, Insightful)
AJ
Re:Programs Like These (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, though, these sort of tools may ultimately hurt the free operating system world because it means that the companies that write the 'doze only software will be less likely to write ports to alternate OS's.
Regardless, I would love to have workign DirectX stuff
Re:Programs Like These (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Programs Like These (Score:2)
Re:Programs Like These (Score:3, Funny)
"CrossOver also integrates with Gnome and KDE to let you transparently open any Word, Excel or PowerPoint file. But even better, you can open this type of attachements directly from any mail client."
This doesn't sound like "better" to me.
Re:Programs Like These (Score:2)
I'd pay for a port of DirectX that *worked*. I wouldn't pay for the *chance* that said port will come out (i.e. Codeweaver's subscription philosophy) when there's really a lower chance that it will happen.
You actually bring up a good point, though... if Apple/Sorenson notice people paying for the Crossover plugin, maybe they'll rethink their business model.
Re:Programs Like These (Score:1, Informative)
I'd pay for a port of DirectX that *worked*. I wouldn't pay for the *chance* that said port will come out (i.e. Codeweaver's subscription philosophy) when there's really a lower chance that it will happen.
I think you're confusing Codeweavers [codeweavers.com] with Transgaming [transgaming.com]. Codeweavers is selling a product to support Quicktime, Shockwave, and a few other plugins on Linux. It works right now. Transgaming is selling subscriptions for effort in supporting Windows games.
Re:Programs Like These (Score:1)
Mmmh, i rather pay 20$ to codeweavers than 200$ to Microsoft...
Re:Programs Like These (Score:1)
Re:Programs Like These (Score:2)
Without such an economy, you would not have your nice personal computer, nor would you be able to post your opinion on an extremely popular site like slashdot.
Re:Programs Like These (Score:2)
If you actually read his post, you would see his sentiment is very clear... he's pissed off by the fact that cool software is being sold instead of given away.
But instead of reading, why not just throw a few 'fucks' out there. Oh wait, you did that already.
Re:Programs Like These (Score:2)
"Personally, i feel programs like these are great. However, having to pay for them takes the purpose out of any free operating system."
He's bitching that he has to pay for software, not any of the lofty ideals of which you speak.
Sheesh...
Re:Programs Like These (Score:2)
I don't know why they are tring to charge end users for this product. Dose it handle ActiveX controls? That would be a lot more reasonable as ActiveX would be hard to do independently and Microsoft would not pay them to do it (to say the least). Hell, isn't Microsoft killing support for all plugins but ActiveX based stuff in XP anyway? It might be that this product may be too late to market to corperations, so they are just tring to get a little money out of casual users to recoup their investment.
Re:Programs Like These (Score:2)
You just don't get it, do you?
How many times do people have to repeat 'free as in speach, not free as in beer' before you get it? I've no objection to paying for software. I'm a programmer. I make my living through other people paying me for my work, it would be completely hypocritical to refuse to pay other people for their work.
The issue is not whether it costs, but whether we can use it freely. And if we can't use it freely, is the cost in freedom worth the return?
I don't have Windows on my box. I don't want Windows on my box. I would, occasionally, like to be able to view QuickTime movies, but I can live without. Am I prepared to pay eighteen dollars to see them? Perhaps. But if there was an open source alternative, I'd be more prepared to pay the originators for it - because it's worth more.
I dunno.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I dunno.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I dunno.... (Score:1, Funny)
I hate having to pay $500 for the CoolerMaster case I'm going to place my $1800 dual Ahtlon system in.
Re:I dunno.... (Score:1)
Missing the point (Score:2, Interesting)
While it's true that he's getting his OS for free, what about those who buy Red Hat or Mandrake or whatever? Why should they have to pay for something that Windows and Mac users get free? That's his question really.
I intend to try it, and I'll pay for it myself if it works, though. I use Debian and therefore never have to pay for my OS.
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
Re:Missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missing the point (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:Missing the point (Score:1)
Actually, they're free under linux as well. You're not paying for the QT plugin, or the Shockwave plugin. You're paying for an application which lets you use those plugins on the OS of your choice (assuming, of course, that OS is linux).
Why should they have to pay for something that Windows and Mac users get free?
Because it's unreasonable to expect every company to spend time developing their application to run on every conceivable OS.
Dinivin
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
It's not every conceivable OS. It's Linux. I'm sure you've heard of it - the operating systme that is taking over the low-end server market and is just now starting to get some traction on the desktop?
I would agree with you if someone was asking for the applications under discussion to be ported to, say, OS/2 or the Acorn. But Linux? If Linux isn't "mainstream" it's certainly the next-thing to it these days. It has at least as much impact as Mac, in my opinion.
Re:I dunno.... (Score:1)
Some people want a free OS and want to buy quality applications with a company behind them to support them... Or take fault when your company invests time and energy and then something breaks.
You can have your cake and eat it to. Don't complain when someone come out with a closed source app for Linux. Go Codeweavers!
Reasonably priced.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they should have some 'home' (non-business) site license for about $25 ;-)
Re:Reasonably priced.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Reasonably priced.. (Score:3, Insightful)
When they include Windows Media (which it seems more websites are using unfortunately), it might be worth $20.
Re:Reasonably priced.. (Score:3)
Temporary Solution for Windows media (Score:1)
A good way to profit from free software? (Score:5, Informative)
My question is whether others out there think this is a good software model? Personally I think it is. They have identified a genuine lack of service which they provide. They provide this service by building on open source technology, namely wine, and then provide a closed for profit products on top of this technology. The revenue generated by these products allow for greater development in the underlying tech (again namely wine) while still providing the desired service, the Windows plugin support.
Aside from the "well these plugins are free on windows, we shouldn't have to pay for a product that lets us use them in Linux" comments. Do people have anything else they'd like to say about the CrossOver plugins or their business model?
I don't know about the business model, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Having transitional products is the best way to show corporations how much money they can save from MS licenses, while getting them onto free software. This is very and sounds like a great business model (at least for this specific product).
Re:I don't know about the business model, but... (Score:2)
Re:A good way to profit from free software? (Score:2)
Hell yes, it's a good idea! They've figured out a way to get paid for doing useful work. What could be wrong with that?
Sloppy gives Codeweavers a Thumbs Up.
Re:A good way to profit from free software? (Score:2)
Of course open source developers are free to develop a product similar to the CrossOver plugin, they just haven't to date. You're always free to wait and not buy their product.
It may come to pass that this product will ship will various distros. Their wine impl. is already free (and available from their site or Red-carpet). If the distros were able to work out fair licensing with Codeweavers, I think this would be a great tool for the Linux desktop.
Re:A good way to profit from free software? (Score:2)
bought it but (Score:1)
Re:bought it but (Score:4, Informative)
Then click MIME Settings and unselect anything you don't want QuickTime to take over. (I think more recent QuickTime versions don't intercept PNG by default.)
Winzip (Score:2, Redundant)
So basically, this will be like Winzip: everyone uses it, nobody pays for it. I wonder how long until the crack comes out...
Re:Winzip (Score:3, Insightful)
No, actually, unlike Winzip, which only nags you each time you start the program, CrossOver nags you about every 15 seconds, and places the nag right over the top of what you are watching. So, there is an incentive to pay for the thing.
Personally, I applaud the creators. While the nag is annoying, I'm rooting hard for anyone who can release good, useful, commercial software for Linux and make a buck or two off it.
What people won't pay for are the trivial little programs you see announced on freshmeat.net hundreds of times a day.
Re:Winzip (Score:1)
Re:Winzip (Score:1)
Tough luck on that. I've never seen (decent) software in anything but a locked glass case in a store with on-duty personnel. Then again, considering what winzip sells for, maybe it isn't behind the glass case.
Or did you mean copyright violation? The dictionary very distinctly says it and theft are different things... I've never commited larceny [dictionary.com] (syn. theft [dictionary.com]) in my entire life. Ever.
However, being the imperfect being I am, I may have accidentally violated [dictionary.com] copyright [dictionary.com] or commited an act against software law [dictionary.com] by using winzip for longer than the trial period.
Sometimes, agreeably, the dictinary can be contrary [dictionary.com], in which case it's probably prudent to take the base definitions and the dates into account. Older words whose base definitions have remained the same longer are, IMHO, considered more correct than "updated" definitions combining these words into a new meaning that doesn't resemble the base words whatsoever.
(This is post #666 right?
Download FTP Link (Score:1, Informative)
Satisfied User (Score:4, Informative)
I purchased Crossover [codeweavers.com] several weeks ago and have been completely satisfied. Quicktime [apple.com] works great. Being able to watch the Fellowship of the Ring [apple.com] trailer on Linux is great! Shockwave [macromedia.com] works well for many sites. (In particular, Shockwave plugins for stuff like 3D has problems.) Codeweaver's tech support mailing list is great, the developers reply quickly and are very helpful.
While I would prefer that Crossover be free software [fsf.org], at least Codeweavers [codeweavers.com] is contributing most of their improvements back to the main Wine [winehq.com] project. Pretty much only the Crossover plugin itself is proprietary software. Buying Crossover is a great way to support the development of Wine and get Quicktime support on Linux right now.
Re:Satisfied User (Score:1, Flamebait)
Why? Does it look any better than watching it on Windows? Was it easier?
Buying Crossover is a great way to support the development of Wine and get Quicktime support on Linux right now.
Why not just get Windows? Why support a software vendor that refuses to support your favorite platform? Or do you consider "it doesn't break under Wine" to be good enough?
Re:Satisfied User (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Does it look any better than watching it on Windows? Was it easier?
It looks the same. Compared to rebooting into Windows, it's significantly easier.
I spend most of my time under Linux. I used only reboot into Windows for games and Quicktime. Now I only reboot into Windows for games. (And thanks to my Playstation 2, I don't boot into Windows for games very often any more.)
Why not just get Windows?
I have Windows, but I don't like it. I'm perfectly happy working under Linux. Crossover allows me to satisify my desire to watch Quicktime videos under Linux. Seems like a good match to me.
Why support a software vendor that refuses to support your favorite platform?
Because I'm a realist. Maybe as Linux's share grows we'll see Quicktime for Linux, but that's not going to happen in the near future. Refusing to use non-native software does nothing to improve the situation.
Or do you consider "it doesn't break under Wine" to be good enough?
I use Linux. I want to watch Quicktime videos. Apple is not going to port Quicktime Player to Linux in the forseeable future. Crossover solves my problem. So yes, it's good enough for now. One step at a time...
Re:Satisfied User (Score:1)
Like you say - I would rather give $5 a month to a company that is open source like Transgaming than I would to M$. So it might not mean native ports - but at least I am not feeding the beast (directly anyway).
I will personally be buying the CrossOver plugin - and was actually thinking about doing so last night (funny how timing is) - but now that there is a demo I will get to try it out first - which is great.
Derek
Re:Satisfied User (Score:1)
Why stop there?? Just head over to Transgaming [transgaming.com] and get rid of Windows once and for all.
I have a subscription to Transgaming for just this purpose. Unfortunately Transgaming work isn't far enough along for my needs yet. By supporting them, I hope that this will change.
Re:Satisfied User (Score:1)
Maybe as Linux's share grows we'll see Quicktime for Linux, but that's not going to happen in the near future.
I'm sure this has been discussed, but I haven't heard about it at all, really, so I'll bring it up: with Apple porting stuff to BSD-derived MacOSX, how hard would it really be (for Apple, presumably,) to create a "Cocoa" (or whatever) compatibility layer and just make stuff like quicktime work in linux? Seems like a good deal of the hard work has already been done...
Why Apple doesn't port Quicktime to Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect Apple can get a high quality, Linux native port of Quicktime done relatively quickly and inexpensively. However, what value does it have for Apple? Will it increase sales of other Apple software? Not likely. Will they sell alot of copies of the Pro version for Linux? Not likely. Will the port strategically help Apple in any real way? Nope. In Apple's mind, Quicktime for Linux has no value, so investing any time or effort into it is a bad idea.
Quicktime on Windows is a different story. It probably doesn't make Apple much money. I wouldn't be surprised if it cost more to develop than they make in Quicktime Pro sales. However, if Quicktime stopped being supported on Windows the world would move to another format (probably Windows Media) practically instantly. The market share of Windows is too important to miss. Apple needs Quicktime on Windows as part of their holding action. Linux doesn't have that leverage, so we're going to remain second class citizens for some time.
QuickTime for Linux (Score:2, Informative)
The other thing is that Apple needs to do a LOT of work to bring the Cocoa API up to rough parity with the Windows, Java and Carbon versions. They won't make any commitments as to when, if ever, that work will be underway. If they took on Linux before Cocoa their developers would go postal.
Re:Satisfied User (Score:2)
Dunno. Don't have Windows. Don't need it anymore thanks in part to CodeWeavers and TransGaming.
**Why not just get Windows? Why support a software vendor that refuses to support your favorite platform? **
Because I'm realistic enough to realize that Linux is nothing more than a blip on most people's desktop radars at the moment. Also, if you would bother to read more about the product you are dissing, you would find that Apple was actually very helpful to the CodeWeavers team during the development of CrossOver. In fact, Apple went so far as to change some of the wording in the license to allow QuickTime to be run legally in WINE.
**Or do you consider "it doesn't break under Wine" to be good enough?**
For WINE, yes I consider it doesn't break "good enough". Since I don't pay for WINE, I'm willing to take my chances. However, that's not good enough for a product I pay for. Thankfully, CrossOver does everything it says it does and is considerably better than just "good enough"
David
Re:Satisfied User (Score:2)
Easier than a reboot, yes.
Why not just get Windows?
Let's seen $20 or $200... hmmmmm, I think I'll go with CrossOver.
Why support a software vendor that refuses to support your favorite platform?
Because I enjoy viewing shockwave and quicktime content (cartoonnetwork.com, for example) enough to swallow my pride and pay $20.00. But not enough to pay $200(full price for homeverion of XP) for the privledge of revamping my entire work style.
Or do you consider "it doesn't break under Wine" to be good enough?
Can I get my task done (whether it be editing XLS, writing code or viewing QT movies)? Then it's good enough for me. And if it's cheaper, that's even better.
Re:Satisfied User (Score:1)
Well, considering that Win2k has shitty support for my audio card, it certainly sounds a lot better under linux. And considering that it takes 3-5 minutes to reboot into Win2k just to watch a video clip, I'd say that the Crossover plugin is consderably easier.
Dinivin
Re:Satisfied User (Score:1)
Because a $20 piece of useful software made for a good cause is more important to me than a $200 piece of software that... isn't.
Why support a software vendor that refuses to support your favorite platform?
This argument can be (and has been) made against Wine in general - We don't like Windows, so we make Windows stuff run under Linux. Why? Because we can and because it's useful to do so. Running Office under Linux is a useful thing for the Linux community. In the case of Crossover, running Quicktime and other plugins under Linux is also a useful thing.
Or do you consider "it doesn't break under Wine" to be good enough?
After my previous statements, I will say this - yes, since it doesn't break under Wine, it's MORE than good enough - I'm running it under Linux.
this seems kind of iffy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:this seems kind of iffy... (Score:1)
Re:this seems kind of iffy... (Score:1)
Software like this brings us closer to the reality of Linux becoming a desktop OS, and I'm all for that.
Hamster Havoc! (Score:1)
Exceptional timing, folks (Score:3, Informative)
Capitalize on all the frustrated geeks and their inability to find a non-Linux box to view the teaser.
Lemonade always sells better when it's hot outside.
Experiences with Crossover (Score:5, Informative)
Performance is, for the most part, indistinguishable from a native Windows version on my 900MhZ Athlon. I understand that there is some initial delay the first time the plugin is started on slower machines. It's been fine for me though.
Netscape *seems* to be a touch more unstable with the plugin installed. There are occasional long delays but I have not confirmed that this is not just some DNS timeout or other Netscape instability (I'm running 4.78... I have not tried installing on 6.1).
Spread of Mal-formed code (Score:3, Funny)
I am guessing it is only a matter of time before someone writes code that will wreak havoc on the linux community.
damn nice stuff. (Score:3, Informative)
First time I've been truly impressed with some piece of software for Linux in the past nine months or so, and this is to the point where twenty bucks for the full version seems like it's UNDER priced.
Download the installer, run it, press a few buttons inside the config gui, and suddenly you can watch all the movies on quicktime.com.. with no stuttering or slowness.
Damn fine piece of work guys.
CrossingOver Plugin (Score:5, Funny)
missing something (Score:1)
OK, OK (Score:1, Funny)
It works (Score:1)
really anoying nags. (Score:1)
One for every window you have open too.
Friendly reminder screens as they are called couldn't be further from the truth.
The quicktime pluggin seems to be working fairly well.
It's not really usable unless u buy it i guess.
Not too bad if you're using the player and not the plugin, since you can move the screen away from the nagboxes and still view it.
Another happy user... (Score:5, Informative)
They made a point of telling the truth about their product and are making all due effort to support and enhance it. Great company who are doing a needed service for the Community. Not only that, they are a major supporter of the wine project. Got a few bucks? They deserve our support.
As for me, the software has been absolutely flawless. I did have some issues on a Mandrake box but it ended up being Crossover was fighing a battle with Plugger. One minor plugin deletion / restart later it installed like a dream.
Support the community! They deserve it!
Tricked me (Score:2)
Is this legal? (Score:1)
Re:Is this legal? (Score:1, Informative)
Keep in mind this is *NOT* a reverse engineering of Quicktime; this is a piece of software that allows you to emulate just enough of Windows to run the Windows version of the Quicktime player.
The better question is "Why doesn't Apple provide a player for Linux?"
B
Re:Is this legal? (Score:2, Informative)
Why is Apple not just creating a Linux client is beyond me.
This "could" have been real progress for switching (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh well, it's still cool news.
Re:This "could" have been real progress for switch (Score:2, Interesting)
Save for debian, there's nothing that prevents SuSE/RedHat/Mandrake/etc. from bundling this with their "Official" distributions. I'm betting the guys over at Codeweaver would negotiate some kind of bundling price.
Re:This "could" have been real progress for switch (Score:2)
That a lot of Linux people think it's near the top is, ironically, one of the things that is holding it back.
Here's some more news: no one will abandon Windows for Linux because of any Windows features Linux mimics, emulates or fudges. No matter how well Linux imitates it, Windows always does a better job of being Windows. Windows features on Linux are one of the few desparate strategies that might keep Linux from fading into useful BSD-like obscurity.
I got it at LinuxWorld Expo in SF and... (Score:1)
Yeah, it's a little slow but it's worth it to be able to watch Quicktime movies on my Linux Box. My friend and I both bought a copy because it isn't re-distributable but he sees potential for using it for other plug-in installations so it may be more useful than first thought.
If you've got the $20 to spare then grab it. It probably won't be the worst $20 spent in your life even if you don't use it much.
Depends on your needs... (Score:2)
Otherwise, I'd say until Linux is there (and I hate to say it, but it's not, yet) than either dual boot, or think about another machine for your "day to day" stuff, and other for whatever reason...
I've always said, use the best tool to get the job done. If you're compromising here or there, than you're not really doing that.
For those that need it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I don't have a real need for this product, so I won't be buying it - I really don't ever see many QT trailers or whatnot to justify it, and all the Shockwave stuff can go out the window as well - give me quality content and information, I say.
I would much rather see the development of an open source video codec on par with Sorensen, and have it become well developed and widely used, but I tend to doubt such will happen, as so much of the tech involved in such an endevor is locked up in patents.
My main concern about such software (like this plugin) is that related to security - whether any exploits could be run against it to gain root access, or something. I tend to doubt this, and if you are running as a user, and you have a good firewall you should be mostly protected - but it is something I always have in the back of my mind...
Shockwave.. (Score:2)
Re:Shockwave.. (Score:2)
No. There's a native plugin for playing Flask / FutureSplash content (Flash 5) but not Director (Shockwave 8.5) content.
Flash is generally used for making web pages be good looking, and Shockwave is used for interactive application, especially in the education industry.
Re:For those that need it... (Score:2)
Oh great! (Score:1)
universally readable web pages to proprietary formats.
Finnaly a company that gets it! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is something that developers have needed to do forever. Forget the RPM vs DEB vs Tarball wars and make it easy for the user dammit!
We all gripe about Micro$oft developing software that is just bloated eye candy with crappy (or no) guts. IMHO Linux developers have been too busy neating up the guts to notice that no one uses their program beacuse it takes two friggin days to satisfy all of the needed dependancies just to compile and then annother two to figure out where the damn thing's files should reside.
Oh ya, after the install the product actually works as advertised too.
These guys get my $20!!! Kudos Codeweavers!
Re:Finnaly a company that gets it! (Score:2)
how a REAL UNIX user would do it (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course I'm sure some Dennis Ritchie wannabe is gonna reply to this and tell me how to do it with piping (you know you want to).
I tried it, its well worth it (Score:3, Interesting)
On a side note they don't disable the demo after 30 days. It looks like its more of an on your honor system. But it does put little messages to buy the software at the beginning of the movies. (At least in quicktime).
Again though, this looks like it was well worth it and the $20 goes to Wine.
I probably won't use it (Score:2)
On balance, I'd say: don't use it unless you really have a very compelling need. View MS Office documents in StarOffice or AbiWord and submit bug reports for any problems you find; that's how those programs get better. As for Quicktime, complain to the web site using it and ask them to use an open format instead (in fact, do that whether or not you actually have a Quicktime viewer).
CrossOver Plugin 1.0.1 released (NEW) (Score:2, Informative)
List of Fixes in 1.0.1
Doesn't completely work for me (Score:1)
So it still has a few rough edges. If it worked flawlessly, they would get my money right away...
Multimedia Viewing under Linux.. (Score:1)
At least one bug in Crossover (Score:2)
Aside from that, it works great (although Apple seems to have found a way to make the Quicktime 5 plugin never cache a downloaded movie on your local machine, which is annoying as fuck -- I want to view it whenever I want, without having to re-download it every time. Can you say "waste of bandwidth"?). I don't know if I'd use the Crossover plugin enough to justify paying for it, but we'll see.
My 2 cents (Score:2)
Those "friendly reminders" are anything but. Damned annoying, IMO. Also, my fonts in Flash animations looked suspiciously like the default font in Netscape (I use Moz0.9.5) after I installed it. I uninstalled it after a few short minutes, mostly because of the annoying reminders, and the Flash fonts reverted back to their previous appearance.
While I do appreciate the usefulness of this product, Flash and Real already work for me, and that added to the annoying font issue make it not worth my $19.95 yet.
YMMV...........
Streaming videos in NC4.78? (Score:2)
Thank you in advance.
Re:Sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)
The demo just has the annoying msgs that appear over the movie, they do go away so you can see the full thing but atleast the msgs are semi-entertaining....
-Torawk
Re:If it ever gets ported to Solaris... (Score:2)
You won't see it on Solaris. Ever (unless maybe while on a LSD type trip Codeweavers ports Wine to Solaras x86.)
Wine is tighed as tightly to x86 as Windows is. But Wine does have features for setting up a wine server type thing for other platforms. I don't know the full details though.
But anything you run under wine is just an X11 client, so export DISPLAY=etc:0 and you're off and running...
Re:If it ever gets ported to Solaris... (Score:2)
The "about" page on the Wine Web site [winehq.com] says Wine "works on most popular Intel Unixes, including Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris."
Well, that depends on the part of Wine you're talking about. As the "about" page says:
The program loader part - which is what CrossOver uses - is tied to x86 (I guess if somebody were really ambitious they could try to make it run MIPS, PowerPC, or Alpha Windows NT binaries - and at some point somebody might do that for IA-64 - but there are a lot fewer non-x86 Windows binaries than x86 Windows binaries, so there's probably not going to be much effort devoted to that soon). So you probably aren't going to see CrossOver for Solaris/SPARC; Solaris/x86 might be possible, but there's probably not much effort going to be devoted to that, either.
(Well, I suppose somebody could try gluing an x86 interpreter, or x86-binary-to-native-binary translator, to Wine, to make a version to run x86 binaries on non-x86 UNIXes, along the lines of Sun's WABI. I don't know whether anybody's thinking about that, however.)
The Winelib library, however, does, I think, work on non-x86 platforms, letting somebody who has source to a Windows application - that "somebody" might be the developer; the idea is, I think, that this can be used for closed-source applications, which I suspect is why WINE isn't GPLed or LGPLed - port it to UNIX.
One of the services that Codeweavers offers [codeweavers.com] is assistance in porting Windows applications to Linux; they speak of "native versions", so this may involve using Winelib.
Re:If it ever gets ported to Solaris... (Score:2)
I think the problem with running Wine on anything other than x86 is the need to interpret x86 machine code. Even if you got it to work, it would be slow.
You are right that compiling source code on Solaris and other platforms under Wine could work. But even there I expect Windows source code to have a lot of x86 assumptions. There are also problems with the fact that a lot of stuff requires a working Windows DLL, which would have to be interpreted anyway.
Re:If it ever gets ported to Solaris... (Score:2)
This entry in the Wine FAQ [codeweavers.com] says otherwise:
I seem to remember reading about a license change to an X-style license at one point.
Yes, hence my references to interpreters and binary-to-binary translators.
Well, with a good binary-to-binary translator, it might not be. Anybody know how well FX!32 did running NT/x86 binaries on NT/Alpha?
Some might, some might not. (Then again, there's probably an unfortunate amount of code written for Linux with x86 assumptions or, at least, "the world is little-endian" assumptions; I've certainly seen code contributed to Ethereal, for example, which worked only on little-endian machines....)
Re:Microsoft Media Player ? (Score:2)