Bad advice. Counterpoint: Wine works really well (especially for old applications) and there's nothing wrong with using it. If people restrict themselves to arbitrary rules then many won't be able to use Linux.
There is value in those who push by absolutes like this; they are moving the world in their direction; it's important to the market to have some edge-zealots on the demand side. Helps prevent monopoly and is an at-large benefit.
Disclosure: I'm 100% Linux since 2005 (except embed devices (game console, Roku)). All the Line-of-Business stuff "just works".
Long time WINE user. It did break so often. I did run Counter-Strike and other software, and usually an update ruined it. Because? It is not supported. The programmers don’t care about WINE and Linux.
The setup is usually a pain and needs workarounds. Same for weird SMB or Exchange stuff. It is a hell. The admin changes a setting and you’re in trouble.
It was fixed with the native port of Counter-Strike. Exchange was fixed by EU regulation. The other applications found better native replacements. I’m giving you the advice because the “hacker ideology” doesn’t help users. Users need reliability and defined behavior.
The users itself can influence that by using compatible software and APIs. And by requesting it. And we need to pay for it.
Don’t lock back. Don’t stay in a hostile relationship. The same advice applies to government agencies or companies. Prepare. Clean cut.
PS: As mentioned I except Proton (as derivative of WINE). Valve controls Steam. Valve works permanent on fixing new issues. They could told a company to hold the update back to protect Linux.
There's a place for pushing strong philosophical points. But that's not what this comment is. This comment is practical advice, and I think it misses the point.
"Try to avoid relying on proprietary software" is strong. "Avoid any option that exists to run software you think you need" feels out of touch, especially when it says "I use Mac for X and Y" - which is barely practical: having a whole extra, expensive computer that's not maintained forever is quite the costly workaround for an arbitrary stance like "don't use Wine" that they don't motivate so much in the end (there's no practical explanation in that comment for avoiding VMs or Wine - they say maintenance, but I don't see what's hard to maintain in running Wine).
The comment argues "The good news. Every bit invested in high quality API/ABI on Linux pays off.". I do agree. I don't know about high quality, and it hurts a bit to say it, but it so happens that Windows might be the only stable API/ABI on Linux, with Wine being a completely libre reimplementation of it. If you need to write a program that you are reasonably sure will run on any Linux in 20 years without intervention, Wine might be your best bet (with AppImage probably your second best bet). What would be the fundamental (philosophical, practical, technical) reason to avoid targeting Wine? What makes winelib so different from other libraries such that you should avoid it? Genuinely curious. What real alternative is there? Qt and Gtk break the API each major version and even the GNU libc doesn't guarantee ABI stability. The only reasonable alternative is "maintained free software" (and that's what I happen to rely on).
FWIW, I have no stake in this: I use only free software, I mostly don't use Wine nor contribute to it, and I wish I were wrong.
I mean in terms of market here, for games (largest current use case for Wine / proton). Its not really a market. I think the investment for linux over windows is for steam to try and push people away from windows so as to reduce the competition for Xbox Game Pass. In the most recent report for steam, linux users are like 2-3% of the total share. I'm not sure that "edge lords" pushing the market, really factors into valve's decision. If Xbox Game Pass goes under, then I think steam will likely reduce its investment in proton.
Just my take though, I get your point that people spreading this idea and encouraging it have a place and at least its not negative. I just don't think that they really are market movers.
I found I was unable to install Wine due to package manager conflicts. I had only one Windows program (Everett Kaser's Hero Hearts game) that I wanted to run on Linux, so I wrote my own implementation of the game engine, which is (in my opinion) much better than the original implementation.
pjmlp|4 months ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2
edoceo|4 months ago
Disclosure: I'm 100% Linux since 2005 (except embed devices (game console, Roku)). All the Line-of-Business stuff "just works".
ho_schi|4 months ago
The setup is usually a pain and needs workarounds. Same for weird SMB or Exchange stuff. It is a hell. The admin changes a setting and you’re in trouble.
It was fixed with the native port of Counter-Strike. Exchange was fixed by EU regulation. The other applications found better native replacements. I’m giving you the advice because the “hacker ideology” doesn’t help users. Users need reliability and defined behavior. The users itself can influence that by using compatible software and APIs. And by requesting it. And we need to pay for it.
Don’t lock back. Don’t stay in a hostile relationship. The same advice applies to government agencies or companies. Prepare. Clean cut.
PS: As mentioned I except Proton (as derivative of WINE). Valve controls Steam. Valve works permanent on fixing new issues. They could told a company to hold the update back to protect Linux.
jraph|4 months ago
"Try to avoid relying on proprietary software" is strong. "Avoid any option that exists to run software you think you need" feels out of touch, especially when it says "I use Mac for X and Y" - which is barely practical: having a whole extra, expensive computer that's not maintained forever is quite the costly workaround for an arbitrary stance like "don't use Wine" that they don't motivate so much in the end (there's no practical explanation in that comment for avoiding VMs or Wine - they say maintenance, but I don't see what's hard to maintain in running Wine).
The comment argues "The good news. Every bit invested in high quality API/ABI on Linux pays off.". I do agree. I don't know about high quality, and it hurts a bit to say it, but it so happens that Windows might be the only stable API/ABI on Linux, with Wine being a completely libre reimplementation of it. If you need to write a program that you are reasonably sure will run on any Linux in 20 years without intervention, Wine might be your best bet (with AppImage probably your second best bet). What would be the fundamental (philosophical, practical, technical) reason to avoid targeting Wine? What makes winelib so different from other libraries such that you should avoid it? Genuinely curious. What real alternative is there? Qt and Gtk break the API each major version and even the GNU libc doesn't guarantee ABI stability. The only reasonable alternative is "maintained free software" (and that's what I happen to rely on).
FWIW, I have no stake in this: I use only free software, I mostly don't use Wine nor contribute to it, and I wish I were wrong.
twosdai|4 months ago
Just my take though, I get your point that people spreading this idea and encouraging it have a place and at least its not negative. I just don't think that they really are market movers.
LtWorf|4 months ago
zzo38computer|4 months ago
anthk|4 months ago
IshKebab|4 months ago