Linux.com

I want to make this clear, "We" don't have the software you are reporting on. What "we" have is a Windows piece of software that runs in an emulator. Just because a company takes an application and includes an emulator with it, it does not mean that it is a "Linux" software title. So while some people may be happy with this offering, it doesn't really do anything for Linux as it is really giving you another platform's software...this should not be the end goal for Linux software. If this is acceptable, then noting the comparison for "Adobe Photoshop Elements", one should simply focus his or her efforts on getting Adobe Photoshop Elements to run in the same emulated environment. Please don't sell emulating another operating system's software to Linux as a "win" for Linux, as it isn't. It simply gives you a make-shift alternative.

Haz

#

A) The more "MS Windows" based software that people currently use, that can be made to run on Linux even with an emulator, the more incentive there is for users to move to a Linux Desktop and away from MS-Windoze. I have a friend that would switch over completely to Linux if she could bring over her "Robo-Form" software. They have no interest in porting it to Linux as there is not enough users that want it there. Which leads me to:

B) If there are enough people using a MS-Win application on Linux using an emulator, then the authors might be more inclined to produce a native Linux version of the app.

We need "Emulators" as a transition from MS-Crap to Linux. This is a GOOD thing! We will all need to compromise for a while until a Linux "Desktop" can fully and natively replace a "MS Desktop"!

Rick

#

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

#

If I was going to start a new project and I wanted my application to work on windows, mac os, linux, and BSD, I would write my application in java. But if I had an already established windows program written in C, or C++, I definitely wouldn't waste my time working on a Linux version where most projects that end up doing it, are usually on their way out. Sure there are some projects that have made the move, and seem to be doing well, but funny how that works, you never hear they are doing well,

#

Remember Compupic came out with a linux version, it was really good, where is it now?

#

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the spent time developing a Linux version and it was a mistake to do so? And by the way, no, I don't know anything about Compupic. I've always used Gimp and Kwikshow for most of my graphic needs...feel free to englighten me as I look at Compupic this.

Haz
[Modified by: Fletch on November 30, 2008 06:10 PM]

#