Linux.com

I believe you missed the point. The opening phrase is that "Linux" has "Picasa", and it doesn't. All that is being sold to the user is an emulator. The software is not written for Linux; it is written for Microsoft Windows. I openly applaud the Winehq/Codeweavers for their work on the said emulator, but one can not sell the idea of "Linux" getting the said software when it hasn't. It was written for Windows, and it doesn't run on Linux. It runs on an emulator for Linux. And I disagree with your point about "then the authors might be more inclined to produce a native Linux version of the app." Why would author(s) spend extra resources to support a platform if their understanding is that there is already a method for getting their software to work on a platform in a fashion that the users of the platform openly accept? It saves the author(s) money by simply saying "just use an emulator". If all these authors have this attitude, then one might as well use MS Windows to run the software that he or she wants to use. I do agree that it can make a good transition piece until a software alternative can be found, but I would never push for it to be used as an end game solution (unless a small handful of applications that are needed can not be replaced and that is the only alternative one has). Anyway, again, the point is "Linux" isn't getting software as the article indicates, it is Windows software...thus Linux doesn't really gain anything other than they can emulate another Windows title.

Haz

#