Picasa for Linux

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Picasa for Linux

Joel Bryan Juliano
Google Picasa for Linux is out, with a .deb package, will this be available in universe repos?

--
"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy." – Samuel Johnson
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Jerome Gotangco
On 5/27/06, Joel Bryan Juliano <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Google Picasa for Linux is out, with a .deb package, will this be available
> in universe repos?


It is considered non-free, so if redistribution is allowed, it can be
in multiverse.

Please post a question like this in sounder next time, this list is
used for development coordination.

Jerome G.

--
Jerome Gotangco
[hidden email] | [hidden email]
Mobile: +639196555242
GPG: 0xA97B69A0

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Dennis Kaarsemaker
On za, 2006-05-27 at 10:49 +0800, Jerome Gotangco wrote:
> It is considered non-free, so if redistribution is allowed, it can be
> in multiverse.

Redistribution is not allowed if I understand their EULA correctly.
--
Dennis K.

Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (198 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Robert Stoffers
On Saturday 27 May 2006 20:02, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
> On za, 2006-05-27 at 10:49 +0800, Jerome Gotangco wrote:
> > It is considered non-free, so if redistribution is allowed, it can be
> > in multiverse.
>
> Redistribution is not allowed if I understand their EULA correctly.

The .deb file on the web site works fine on my Dapper Drake install, Breezy is
listed as supported on their site also. Maybe Google could be asked if they
want to distribute it in multiverse?

Robert Stoffers
--
Member, Ubuntu - http://www.ubuntu.com
Staff Member, Freenode IRC Network - irc://irc.freenode.net

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Michael Vogt-4
In reply to this post by Joel Bryan Juliano
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 10:33:46AM +0800, Joel Bryan Juliano wrote:
> Google Picasa <http://picasa.google.com/linux/> for Linux is out, with a
> .deb <http://picasa.google.com/linux/thanks-deb.html> package, will this be
> available in universe repos?

The license agreement http://picasa.google.com/linux/eula.html does
not look like we can distribute it and so we can't put it into
universe or multiverse.

If google would make a repository available we might be able to get it
into gnome-app-install via the "3rd-party" repositories, but
apparently they only provide a single deb. The package itself works
fine on ubuntu. I send a mail to google asking if it would be possible
to provide a repository in additon to the current simple package.

Cheers,
 Michael

--
Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Zhengpeng Hou
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

在 星期六 27 五月 2006 21:23,Michael Vogt 写道:

but picasa for can not support chinese, maybe japanese and korean too.
if we use the wine in dapper, it can support chinese well.

- --
www.ubuntu.org.cn  --< simplified chinese website
www.ubuntu-zh.org --< website for all chinese user
ubuntu-zh AT lists DOT ubutu DOT com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEeG2BL0GT9KmpvcsRAp6SAJ9mBTd4mPCcAaxecolqKsBgPjX7tgCfb2XZ
Z7y2dK0F8ukm2pZ28p8fZvQ=
=IuQk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Marco Cabizza
In reply to this post by Robert Stoffers
Il giorno sab, 27/05/2006 alle 22.39 +1000, rob ha scritto:

> On Saturday 27 May 2006 20:02, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote:
> > On za, 2006-05-27 at 10:49 +0800, Jerome Gotangco wrote:
> > > It is considered non-free, so if redistribution is allowed, it can be
> > > in multiverse.
> >
> > Redistribution is not allowed if I understand their EULA correctly.
>
> The .deb file on the web site works fine on my Dapper Drake install, Breezy is
> listed as supported on their site also. Maybe Google could be asked if they
> want to distribute it in multiverse?
>
> Robert Stoffers
> --
> Member, Ubuntu - http://www.ubuntu.com
> Staff Member, Freenode IRC Network - irc://irc.freenode.net
>
Hope we don't really want that ugly wine hack in Ubuntu/Debian or
whatever :)

We should probably ask Google to release picasa as free software - or at
least free to be distributed - AND to make a real decent porting,
instead of this wine thing. It's really bad even on the formal side,
because it should _depend_ on wine, not ship its own version.

Until then, f-spot is more than enough.

~marco


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Matthew Garrett
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 12:43:18PM +0200, Marco Cabizza wrote:

> Hope we don't really want that ugly wine hack in Ubuntu/Debian or
> whatever :)

Why not? Wine just adds another supported API to the Linux platform.
It's obviously going to lag behind native code in terms of integration,
but then to some extent the same is true of GTK apps on Windows.

> We should probably ask Google to release picasa as free software - or at
> least free to be distributed - AND to make a real decent porting,
> instead of this wine thing. It's really bad even on the formal side,
> because it should _depend_ on wine, not ship its own version.

Given that the necessary patches to wine have only just been released,
and given that wine suffers from occasional regressions, this isn't
terribly surprising.

--
Matthew Garrett | [hidden email]

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Marco Cabizza
In reply to this post by Marco Cabizza
[Conrad, you forgot to post to the list]

Il giorno dom, 28/05/2006 alle 15.37 -0600, Conrad Knauer ha scritto:
> On 5/28/06, Marco Cabizza <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > It's really bad even on the formal side,
> > because it should _depend_ on wine, not ship its own version.
>
> As I understand it, its for quality control; by packaging it with a
> version that's known to work really well, it avoids the various issues
> Matthew Garrett mentioned.  It BTW vaguely reminds me of the idea
> behind klik (http://klik.atekon.de/).

By using wine? I am using Debian and it doesn't work, should I file a
bug (where?) && get the reply "we don't know what your issue is, stay
tuned"? :)

> > Until then, f-spot is more than enough.
>
> I'm sure, but its not a bad thing to have more software available for
> Linux (well, so long as it isn't Bonzi Buddy or things like that ;)
> Basically if it gets Windows users to try Linux, all the better (we
> want to get bug #1 fixed, ne?
> https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/1 ;).  Then once they're
> using Linux, they can compare it to native software and see which best
> suits their needs.

99% useful software for Linux runs natively. If Unreal Tournament 2004
runs (perfectly) natively I don't see why Picasa shouldn't :)

> Consider non-libre software like Opera; if someone is using Windows
> and really likes Opera, the fact that it is available under Linux may
> entice them to at least try it.  If they then say, discover Konqueror
> and like it better, then they're very likely to switch, ne?

Opera has the QT interface for Linux and we can consider it "native"
even if it's statically linked. Still, they ship an ELF.

> I think that in the short-term anyway, the best strategy would be to
> lobby Google to make the redistribution licensing more friendly so
> that it could be included in multiverse (or at least get them to
> create a repository like Opera did).

Unfortunately in my opinion the licensing issue is not enough. We don't
want poorly-ported software - if Picasa *might even be* considered a
porting - in our distributions. People will just see that their favorite
software, Picasa, runs poorly under their Ubuntu Linux system, and say
in the end that:

1) Emulation sucks because it's slow
2) Software for Windows is better the DIRECT Linux equivalent (Firefox
as well respects this rule)

I am not the only one[1] who thinks so, by the way. Speaking of
emulation, in fact, we should consider it just if there is _NO_ free
alternative to non-free software (I think about Flash for graphics and
animation (there actually are alternatives for web-releated stuff[2])),
and this is not the case.

So, people, let's get realistic and forget Picasa for a couple minutes
until we get a _real_ version for Linux :)

~marco

[1] http://www.figuiere.net/hub/blog/?2006/05/27/410-dear-google
[2] http://osflash.org/open_source_flash_projects


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Joel Bryan Juliano
On 5/29/06, Marco Cabizza <[hidden email]> wrote:

Unfortunately in my opinion the licensing issue is not enough. We don't
want poorly-ported software - if Picasa *might even be* considered a
porting - in our distributions. People will just see that their favorite
software, Picasa, runs poorly under their Ubuntu Linux system, and say
in the end that:

1) Emulation sucks because it's slow
2) Software for Windows is better the DIRECT Linux equivalent (Firefox
as well respects this rule)

How does OpenOffice.org's Java VM differs from Emulation in terms of speed? 

I am not the only one[1] who thinks so, by the way. Speaking of
emulation, in fact, we should consider it just if there is _NO_ free
alternative to non-free software (I think about Flash for graphics and
animation (there actually are alternatives for web-releated stuff[2])),
and this is not the case.

It's really hard to convience those proprietary developers to open source their software, unless, they really want it or 95% of global computer users use Linux.

If we really can't convience them, the only way is to make a similar open source version or use the Picasa approach, and by doing that, the only thing that is really important is to convience them to put those apps in universe.

So, people, let's get realistic and forget Picasa for a couple minutes
until we get a _real_ version for Linux :)

~marco

[1] http://www.figuiere.net/hub/blog/?2006/05/27/410-dear-google
[2] http://osflash.org/open_source_flash_projects



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBEeh1ZMb5saAui4+QRAmfRAJwPTCRYEp0IyT4qwJVY5T/dMUtv/gCfZeCe
YSm4rn1IkVjXbYFpd15jf9Q=
=ztWW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel





--
"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy." – Samuel Johnson
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Conrad Knauer
In reply to this post by Marco Cabizza
On 5/28/06, Marco Cabizza <[hidden email]> wrote:

> [Conrad, you forgot to post to the list]

Hmm... I just hit reply and assumed that it would go to the list;
sorry about that :)

Looks like I'll have to manually put the address in; are these
messages not getting a reply-to header added by the ML software?

> > As I understand it, its for quality control; by packaging it with a
> > version that's known to work really well, it avoids the various issues
> > Matthew Garrett mentioned.
>
> By using wine?

Well, that specific version of Wine anyway (as in Google Labs likely
considers that version to work the best with Picasa thusfar).

> I am using Debian and it doesn't work,

In what way? (does it even start?) as per
http://picasa.google.com/linux/faq.html its supposed to work with both
Sarge and Etch...

> should I file a bug (where?)

The Picassa page suggests
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Labs-Picasa-for-Linux for
support.

If there's a Debian equivalent of the Ubuntu Forums, that would be a
good place too...

> Unfortunately in my opinion the licensing issue is not enough. We don't
> want poorly-ported software - if Picasa *might even be* considered a
> porting - in our distributions. People will just see that their favorite
> software, Picasa, runs poorly under their Ubuntu Linux system, and say
> in the end that:
>
> 1) Emulation sucks because it's slow

It seemed to be quite fast and responsive on my system... As per
http://www.winehq.com/site/docs/wine-faq/index#IS-WINE-AN-EMULATOR

"Wine Is Not a (CPU) Emulator. Wine just provides the Windows API.
[...] The advantage is that, unlike solutions that rely on CPU
emulation, Wine runs applications at full speed. Sometimes a program
run under Wine will be slower than when run on a copy of Microsoft
Windows, but this is more due to the fact that Microsoft has heavily
optimized parts of their code, whereas mostly Wine is not well
optimized (yet). Occasionally, an app may run faster under Wine than
on Windows. Most apps run at roughly the same speed."

CK

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Ivan Krstić-3
Conrad Knauer wrote:
> Looks like I'll have to manually put the address in; are these
> messages not getting a reply-to header added by the ML software?

They're not. Use the reply-to-all feature of your mail client.

> Well, that specific version of Wine anyway (as in Google Labs likely
> considers that version to work the best with Picasa thusfar).

225 patches to Wine were funded by Google to enable Picasa to work
properly. See:

 http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-devel/2006-May/047806.html
 http://code.google.com/wine.html

--
Ivan Krstic <[hidden email]> | GPG: 0x147C722D

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

James Hall-3
In reply to this post by Marco Cabizza
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 12:43 +0200, Marco Cabizza wrote:
> Hope we don't really want that ugly wine hack in Ubuntu/Debian or
> whatever :)

The average Joe doesn't care if it's using GTK, QT or Wine API's. Wine
should be a first class citizen on Ubuntu. Sure, it looks a bit out of
place and some discredit it because it's "emulation" but the Windows API
is used in the vast majority of commercial desktop software and if we
can't make them integrate with our desktop like native GTK/QT apps then
we are missing out on a huge opportunity.

In an "ideal world" we'd want all our apps written using GTK or QT for
KDE folk but developers with an existing Windows application aren't
going to do that - 'emulation' is the best chance we have at getting
mainstream acceptance for Linux. I know many people who will prefer a
GTK-based app over a QT equivalent simply because it uses GTK, not on
features. You'll find my girlfriend couldn't give two monkeys and use
the one she prefers based on features and ease of use.

In conclusion - we *have* to make Wine-based ports as easy as possible
to install and configure since they are valuable tools that Windows-folk
are already familiar with. Why should people care how it was written or
what libraries and API's it uses?

-- James

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Thom Holwerda
> In conclusion - we *have* to make Wine-based ports as easy as possible
> to install and configure since they are valuable tools that Windows-
> folk
> are already familiar with. Why should people care how it was  
> written or
> what libraries and API's it uses?

I'd say the most important thing is that applications share a similar  
look. As long as that's guaranteed, why should the end-users care?


Thom Holwerda
---
Managing editor at http://www.osnews.com

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Marco Cabizza
In reply to this post by James Hall-3
Il giorno lun, 29/05/2006 alle 14.24 +0100, James Hall ha scritto:
> The average Joe doesn't care if it's using GTK, QT or Wine API's. Wine
> should be a first class citizen on Ubuntu.

We're not talking about GTK or QT. We are talking about a total lack of
performance.

>  Sure, it looks a bit out of
> place and some discredit it because it's "emulation" but the Windows API
> is used in the vast majority of commercial desktop software and if we
> can't make them integrate with our desktop like native GTK/QT apps then
> we are missing out on a huge opportunity.

We are not missing anything, we want to provide a better desktop, nobody
wants a rip-off from Windows. We all know - yes, and it's true - that
the Linux desktop in its current state is light years above the Windows
Desktop, think about little things like the virtual desktops, the
easiest way _ever_ to install most software you need, the quantity of
software you may get from the Internet, like, a single package for the
codecs with plenty of documentation for it. And now we've got all this
Xgl goodness, which Windows is still far away to get.

> In an "ideal world" we'd want all our apps written using GTK or QT for
> KDE folk but developers with an existing Windows application aren't
> going to do that - 'emulation' is the best chance we have at getting
> mainstream acceptance for Linux. I know many people who will prefer a
> GTK-based app over a QT equivalent simply because it uses GTK, not on
> features. You'll find my girlfriend couldn't give two monkeys and use
> the one she prefers based on features and ease of use.

Ease of use. Right. F-spot is the right choice.

> In conclusion - we *have* to make Wine-based ports as easy as possible
> to install and configure since they are valuable tools that Windows-folk
> are already familiar with. Why should people care how it was written or
> what libraries and API's it uses?

Windows folks should start finding familiar what we have as 90% people
using Linux have until now. If I want to write a document I don't want
to use wine + MSoffice, full stop.

And please, PLEASE, don't tell me Picasa is the most useful software
ever. I mean, lots of people who *know what they're doing* more than I
do[1] have already suggested F-Spot. Picasa has already got an
alternative. We should probably worry about CAD softare and videogames,
rather than carrying on the Picasa argument :)

Take care
~marco

[1] http://rlove.org/log/2006052601.html

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Marco Cabizza
In reply to this post by Joel Bryan Juliano
Il giorno lun, 29/05/2006 alle 06.26 +0800, Joel Bryan Juliano ha
scritto:

> On 5/29/06, Marco Cabizza <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>         Unfortunately in my opinion the licensing issue is not enough.
>         We don't
>         want poorly-ported software - if Picasa *might even be*
>         considered a
>         porting - in our distributions. People will just see that
>         their favorite
>         software, Picasa, runs poorly under their Ubuntu Linux system,
>         and say
>         in the end that:
>        
>         1) Emulation sucks because it's slow
>         2) Software for Windows is better the DIRECT Linux equivalent
>         (Firefox
>         as well respects this rule)
>
> How does OpenOffice.org's Java VM differs from Emulation in terms of
> speed?
I have never talked about OpenOffice.org and I am a strong LaTeX/Abiword
user (which _OF COURSE_ doesn't mean that anyone should be one).

Still, we're talking about something else, here the licensing issue
matters and OOo is actually free software :)

>         I am not the only one[1] who thinks so, by the way. Speaking
>         of
>         emulation, in fact, we should consider it just if there is
>         _NO_ free
>         alternative to non-free software (I think about Flash for
>         graphics and
>         animation (there actually are alternatives for web-releated
>         stuff[2])),
>         and this is not the case.
>
> It's really hard to convience those proprietary developers to open
> source their software, unless, they really want it or 95% of global
> computer users use Linux.
Totally agree, unfortunately.

> If we really can't convience them, the only way is to make a similar
> open source version or use the Picasa approach, and by doing that, the
> only thing that is really important is to convience them to put those
> apps in universe.

Multiverse, still Picasa is _not_ free. Still, we should probably prefer
free software for programs who've got a free alternative.. I don't know
how many times I've expressed this concept :)

Take care
~marco



--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Joel Bryan Juliano
In reply to this post by Thom Holwerda
On 5/29/06, Thom Holwerda <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In conclusion - we *have* to make Wine-based ports as easy as possible
> to install and configure since they are valuable tools that Windows-
> folk
> are already familiar with. Why should people care how it was
> written or
> what libraries and API's it uses?

I'd say the most important thing is that applications share a similar
look. As long as that's guaranteed, why should the end-users care?

I believe GTK+/QT look is doable in Wine. I believe that there should be wine-gtk, and wine-kde, or just wine that shares the specific theme settings. 

Thom Holwerda
---
Managing editor at http://www.osnews.com

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel



--
"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy." – Samuel Johnson
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Marco Cabizza
In reply to this post by Marco Cabizza
[John, you forgot to CC: the list]

Il giorno lun, 29/05/2006 alle 23.38 +0800, John McCabe-Dansted ha
scritto:

> On 5/29/06, Marco Cabizza <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Il giorno lun, 29/05/2006 alle 14.24 +0100, James Hall ha scritto:
> > > The average Joe doesn't care if it's using GTK, QT or Wine API's. Wine
> > > should be a first class citizen on Ubuntu.
> >
> > We're not talking about GTK or QT. We are talking about a total lack of
> > performance.
>
> Actually, Wine overall performs similarly to native windows
> performance, (actually runs faster than XP on a number of tests) see
> e.g. :
>
> http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5
Hope I don't represent the average user who's got problems *just
running* wine.

> Also, I hear that it is common to use wine but also link against GTK
> for relevant UI components so that you only have to port 1% of your
> software yet still integrate well into a GTK based desktop.

That would be good news, but I've never experienced of that happening,
my fault I don't use wine that often.

> Actually, I used to like running IE under wine just for the irony ;)

Which is slightly different from
a) NEEDING IE
b) Asking to get IE into multiverse

> Actually I am unlikely to use Picasa if only because it is not OSS.
> However, because Google chose to use wine which is under the LGPL,
> this means that they contributed patches to an OSS project... and just
> because I don't use Picasa doesn't mean that I won't find those fixes
> useful in running other software under wine. If Google had chosen not
> to use wine none of their work would have been open-sourced. So, IMHO
> "thanks, Google, for using and contributing to an open-source library"
> :)

As for me it would sound like "thanks, Google, but you can do better,
you surely know that you are _not_ the only corp. who decided to take a
glance of the OSS 'market', please, don't be mean."

~marco


--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Matthew Garrett
In reply to this post by Marco Cabizza
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 05:10:38PM +0200, Marco Cabizza wrote:

> We're not talking about GTK or QT. We are talking about a total lack of
> performance.

Why would Wine be any slower than GTK or QT? It's an implementation of
an API.

--
Matthew Garrett | [hidden email]

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Picasa for Linux

Bugzilla from ulrik.mikaelsson@gmail.com
In reply to this post by James Hall-3
On 5/29/06, James Hall <[hidden email]> wrote:
Why should people care how it was written or what libraries and API's it uses?
Two short terms: "maintainability" and "quality assurance".

If I, as a user got to choose, I would probably want a computer that could plan my entire day, lift me up and carry me around all day, play all the new tunes from all new artists, except "the ones I don't like" in my ear, and making them fresh brewed coffee with beans not harvested more than 30 minutes ago. All this while I don't even notice it happens and most importantly, for free.

Unfortunately, I don't always get to choose.

As a DEVELOPER, my priorities is normally laid somewhat different. What I as a developer (and a user) thinks is important to Ubuntu, or anything I am developing myself (no I'm not developing for Ubuntu, I just discovered it a couple of months ago) is to have MAINTAINABLE software, with QUALITY ASSURANCE.

I simply want to know that what I install at my fathers computer, a 4 hour trip from where I live, it'll keep running, fast and slick as it did when I installed it. I want an upgrade to be possible to perform off remote, and I want to be able to install stuff for him from remote. For that to happen, I must rely on that the core of the platform works as expected, "business as usual". That is achieved through quality assurance, which is greatly aided by maintainability.

Quality assurance could loosely be considered to find and fix bugs before they affects a user, a task increasing exponentially with the amount of code running. Every little piece should be tested and reviewed in numerous ways, before beeing considered stable.

To include a beast like Wine as a prerequisiste for something like Picasa, which most users is likely to install if it were available in repos, would put a HUGE maintenance burden on the Ubuntu devs. Wine is NOT an API, as many here seems to claim. It is a composition of MANY API:s. In Wine there are counter-parts for the X api, mouse-handling, OpenGL, GTK, basic filesystem-access, CUPS, Serial-port-handling, Sound, and a big bunch of other API:s. As if things weren't difficult enough, Wine always has to adapt. Adapt to changes in Linux, changes in Windows, even unexpected uses of the Windows API that Microsoft themselves didn't count with. All this dependencies leads to a LOT of integration and regression testing, making Q&A a pure nightmare for anyone wanting to provide the same level of quality in a wine-based app, such as Picasa, as in a Native Linux app, such as for instance Firefox.

To take on this work for a single, closed source, application that does something for which there are already alternatives, I think is a quite bad idea. It is simply not worth the effort. Sure, I think Picasa is great, and sure, I think it's a good thing that Google is releasing these goodies for Linux. But it's not for Ubuntu to distribute.

Still, I'm going to advice my father to install the .deb. It worked for me.

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
12