Live data from Hacker News

Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

linuxuprising.com

151–160 of 192 posts

Re: Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err ... yeah - now you make it sound like I'm incapable of learning/trying new software. Yes I've tried those alternative solutions and they don't have the same sort of polish and workflow as everything else. Find me ONE professional graphics designer who works 100% in GIMP and Inkscape - they just don't have the same feature set. If you do find people using GIMP and Inkscape in the professional world they almost alw…

> Find me ONE professional graphics designer who works 100% in GIMP and Inkscape My partner does, as do a number of studios and collectives I know in Rotterdam, Brussels, Paris and Porto. They use of course way more tools than Gimp and Inkscape, but work on Linux and exclusively with Free and Open Source software. For them I feel it’s both about the philosophy, the challenge, and discovering new ways of working. Tryi…

> It’s just to say that such designers do exist

Sure - somewhere they exist. But I have yet to run into one in my career. Real question: are they doing paid production work?

I just simply cannot fathom passing off the cost of using buggy/incomplete tooling to my customer so I'm curious if it's people just producing for the open source community using open source tools?

Not trying to rip on your statement, but that's the only reason I can fathom using these tools in any professional context.

Re: Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

#152
This actually seems like a GREAT thing to untangle all the otherwise useless? 32bit support from the underlying filesystem.

Why have windows apps accessing your 32 bit libraries in /usr (which only the Windows apps need at this point) and instead just a flatpak library of sandboxed 32 libraries?

My steam install is already flatpaked, I'd be much happier if the community just moved this way -

https://winepak.org/

Seems like much closer to what I would want when running ANY Windows app in my otherwise completely open source desktop in the first place.

Re: Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

#153

I immediately wondered about macOS, which is dropping 32-bit support as well. One of the first links I found[1] seems to say that there is no 64-bit wine on macOS regardless of library issues, due to an ABI incompatibility. So on the surface it seems like the world is shifting under wine's feet, and they are going to need to do a second level of emulation eventually to keep 32-bit stuff running. [1]: https://forum.wi…

64-bit WINE exists on macOS now, I have it installed on my MacBook Air. But 64-bit WINE can't run 32-bit Windows apps because it's not an emulator, it's a binary loader and a set of system libraries.

> But 64-bit WINE can't run 32-bit Windows apps because it's not an emulator, it's a binary loader and a set of system libraries

The history of the "wine is not an emulator" thing is interesting, since the name originally in fact meant "WINdows Emulator".

As far as I have been able to dig up, the first suggestion to change the meaning to "Wine Is Not an Emulator" came up on Usenet in 1993 [1], when there was some concern that "Windows Emulator" might run into trademark problems.

Bob Amstadt responded to that [2] telling how the name "wine" came about:

> My orignal line of thinking was "winemu", but I didn't like that. Then I thought of shortening it to "wine". This led me to think of "whine" and "whinny". I liked "whine", but felt that it was too long.

As far as I have been able to tell, nothing further came of the "not an emulator" suggestion at that time. Sometime over the next four years, it did become an alternative meaning of the name, but I'm not sure exactly when or why. From the FAQ in late 1997 [3]

> 1.2: Why call it 'Wine'?

> The word Wine stands for one of two things: WINdows Emulator, or Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are right. Use whichever one you like best.

They didn't stop calling it an emulator until the end of 1998. The release notes for 981108 [4] described at thusly:

> This is release 981108 of Wine, the MS Windows emulator

The release notes for 981211 said [5]:

> This is release 981211 of Wine, a free implementation of Windows on Unix

I've not been able to find for sure why they stopped calling it an emulator, but it looks like there were two things. I don't have cites for these because I didn't save links. I apparently though they were somewhere I'd be able to easily find again, and was evidently wrong.

One of the reasons is that Wine can be used for more than just taking a Windows binary and running it on Unix. It could also be linked with native Unix code to make it easier to produce native Unix ports of Windows programs.

The other reason is that computers were getting fast enough that emulators of older hardware were starting to get useful enough for people to be aware of them, but were slow. Most users of Macs and DOS or Windows PCs only ever heard of emulation in that context. Tell them that they can run Unix and keep using their old Windows programs via the "WINdows Emulator" on Unix, and they were going to think that would be very slow.

It was a lot easier to simply stop calling Wine an emulator than try to explain to people that it was just emulators that had to emulate a CPU that were inherently slow at that time, and that since Wine just has to emulate Windows interfaces, which for most programs most of the time will map in a fairly straightforward way to Unix interfaces, it is very low overhead.

[1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.mis...

[2] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.mis...

[3] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.emulators.ms-wind...

[4] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.emulators.ms-wind...

[5] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.emulators.ms-wind...

Re: Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

#154
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For work in Windows shop,sure, until I need Docker, although I could with faster I/O! For home and companies that don't architect themselves around specific workstation OS, Linux all the way. I personally rarely use Wine, if ever, but had to use it for my kids requiring software that was available on Windows only.

WSL 2 supports Docker now.

Yes, and you need to run the Insiders edition of Windows, which is not a good idea to do on your main computer. Most people will expect until WSL2 is available in the standard Windows version.

Re: Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

#155
It seems to me, we'll probably wind up with a base linux container for 32-bit wine support... now, what that is based on, and how well it's maintained is another issue entirely.

By comparison there's DosEMU, DosBox and others for DOS, but Windows/Wine is a much larger surface. I can only hope there's enough community to create effectively a "virtual distro base" that's 32-bit so that said apps can continue to run.

Should be fairly similar to the effort on windows for WSL2 ... Would be interesting to see MS take a similar approach for DOS/Win32 support. Given the changes in MS, would actually be VERY interesting to see MS support Wine32 under WSL2 so that they could remove the 32bit support from windows as well. Unlikely, but one can dream.

Re: Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

#156
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

64-bit WINE exists on macOS now, I have it installed on my MacBook Air. But 64-bit WINE can't run 32-bit Windows apps because it's not an emulator, it's a binary loader and a set of system libraries.

> But 64-bit WINE can't run 32-bit Windows apps because it's not an emulator, it's a binary loader and a set of system libraries The history of the "wine is not an emulator" thing is interesting, since the name originally in fact meant "WINdows Emulator". As far as I have been able to dig up, the first suggestion to change the meaning to "Wine Is Not an Emulator" came up on Usenet in 1993 [1], when there was some con…

You're reminding me that WINE could be considered a “high-level emulator” in video game emulation parlance.

Re: Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

#157
post #47

But why not just do a translation — 32bit x86 to 64bit x86 doesn’t meaningfully restrict available instructions, then just* plant a bunch trampolines in the low 4gig to the real implementations in the 64bit adds space. * I know this isn’t a trivial “just” but it seems like a plausibly achievable approach to me

I wonder if it'd be easier to use qemu's binary compatibility features? Granted, I've only seen that used in Linux, but it's an existing layer that supports running code for another processor as if it were native.

That qemu mode requires a full set of libraries compiled for the processor the code you want to run executes on, so it doesn't help here - if you've got that you can just use the Linux kernel's built-in 32 bit compatibility layer which isn't going away any time soon and get better performance.

Re: Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

#158
post #145
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The change Ubuntu is proposing is far less harsh than what macOS is doing. Unlike macOS, Ubuntu will still run 32-bit processes, you just have to provide all of the userspace libraries. Applications like Steam for Linux already do this for binary compatibility reasons, so their usecase won't change much. Wine's official Ubuntu packages currently rely on the OS to provide these userspace libraries. They would "only" n…

Remember, though, that the hardware-specific OpenGL library for the user's specific graphics hardware is also a userspace library that has to be provided in a 32-bit version. Even Steam doesn't bother shipping that because it's just not feasible. Without at least some library support from distros it's just not practical to continue 32-bit compatibility.

You can have a little 64 bit process which communicates with the 32 bit process with a named pipe, and acts as a proxy and makes all the syscalls and loads and calls the 64 bit libraries and returns the responses.

Obviously it adds extra context switches and will reduce performance, but if you're running ancient legacy 32 bit code, you can probably afford that.

Re: Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

#159

It seems to me, we'll probably wind up with a base linux container for 32-bit wine support... now, what that is based on, and how well it's maintained is another issue entirely. By comparison there's DosEMU, DosBox and others for DOS, but Windows/Wine is a much larger surface. I can only hope there's enough community to create effectively a "virtual distro base" that's 32-bit so that said apps can continue to run. Sh…

Isn't the Steam client 32 bits too?

Re: Wine Developers Concerned with Ubuntu Dropping 32-Bit Support

#160

It seems to me, we'll probably wind up with a base linux container for 32-bit wine support... now, what that is based on, and how well it's maintained is another issue entirely. By comparison there's DosEMU, DosBox and others for DOS, but Windows/Wine is a much larger surface. I can only hope there's enough community to create effectively a "virtual distro base" that's 32-bit so that said apps can continue to run. Sh…

I agree that a virtual 32 bit distro is probably the only way this makes sense. I can't imagine that a project like wine has any capacity to do all the security updates and dealing with all of multi distro complexities to work around the fact that they could have wildly different library sets to stand on. It could potentially be done as part of a distro package for Ubuntu but it would be a single person replicating the effort of the core libs for ubuntu over again, just for this one corner project.

Either that or someone's going to have to rebuild WOW64 on top of wine? I guess that could happen.

Post reply on HN