A few months ago I left a busy startup job I’d had for over a year. The work was engrossing: I stopped blogging, but I was programming every day. I learned a completely new language, but got plenty of chances to use my existing knowledge. That is, after all, why they hired me.
I especially liked something that might seem boring: combing through logs of occasional server errors and modifying our code to avoid them. Maybe it was because I had setup the monitoring system. Or because I was manually deleting servers that had broken in new ways. The economist in me especially liked putting a dollar value on bugs of this nature: 20 useless servers cost an extra 500 dollars a week on AWS.
But, there’s only so much waste like this to clean up. I’d automated most of the manual work I was doing and taught a few interns how to do the rest. I spent two weeks openly wondering what I’d do after finishing my current project, even questioning whether I’d still be useful with the company’s new direction.
Career Tip: don’t do this.
That’s when we agreed to part ways. So, there I was, no “official” job but still a ton of things to keep me busy. I’d help run a chain of Hacker Hostels in Silicon Valley, I was still maintaining Wine as an Ubuntu developer, and I was still a “politician” on Ubuntu’s Community Council having weekly meetings with Mark Shuttleworth.
Politiking, business management, and even Ubuntu packaging, however, aren’t programming. I just wasn’t doing it anymore, until last week. I got curious about counting my users on Launchpad. Download counts are exposed by an API, but not viewable on any webpage. No one else had written a proper script to harvest that data. It was time to program.
And man, I went a little nuts. It was utterly engrossing, in the way that writing and video games used to be. I found myself up past 3am before I even noticed the time; I’d spent a whole day just testing and coding before finally putting it on github. I rationalized my need to make it good as a service to others who’d use it. But in truth I just liked doing it.
It didn’t stop there. I started looking around for programming puzzles. I wrote 4 lines of python that I thought were so neat they needed to be posted as a self-answered question on stack overflow. I literally thought they were beautiful, and using the new yield from feature in Python3 was making me inordinately happy.
And now, I’m writing again. And making terrible cartoons on my penboard. I missed this shit. It’s fucking awesome.
It was Thursday afternoon, a completely sensible hour, but for me I had been woken up by the call. In my sleepy haze I hadn’t realized that this quickly turned into a surprise job interview. I made the mistake of saying that, while I had worked plenty with Ubuntu packaging and scripted application tests, I hadn’t actually written any of Wine’s C code.
I began to feel the consequences of the impression I’d given. “Well, we want a real developer.” Without thinking, I’d managed to frame my years of experience in precisely the wrong way. All that integration work, application testing, knowledge of scripting languages and the deep internals of Ubuntu suddenly counted for nothing. It didn’t matter how much work I’d done or how many developer summits I’d been sponsored to: in this moment I was someone who didn’t even write simple Wine conformance tests.
We talked some more, and I went back to bed to wake at midnight, technically Friday. Too late and too early to go out, everything was quiet enough to get some real work done. I thought about the earlier conversation, and while I hadn’t written C code since high school I decided to dive right back in and hack at Wine myself. Within minutes I found a bug, and four hours later I had code not only proving it, but also fixing it for good.
Test driven development
Today’s Wine consists of two equally important parts: a series of implementations pretending to be parts of Windows, and an ever-growing suite of unit tests. The implementations are straightforward once you know the right thing to do: if the waiter function in Windows’ restaurant.dll asks for a tip, then ours needs to as well. Similarly, the tests prove what the right thing actually is, on both Wine and Windows. They help us answer weird questions, like if the Windows waiter still demands a tip with a negative bill. Somewhere out there, there’s a Windows program that depends on this behavior, and it will be broken in Wine if we make the mistake of assuming Windows acts reasonably.
I asked a developer to recommend a DLL that needed better tests, picked a random C file in it, and started looking. I soon found my target, a documented and complete implementation of a function with only partial tests. This code is already written, and believed working, in Wine. I was supposed to write a bunch of tests that should pass in Wine. That’s when I learned the function is already broken.
The Wine Testbot
Wine owes a lot to the late Greg Geldorp, an employee of VMware who originally created a Windows testbot for us. Any developer can submit a test patch to it, and those tests will be run on multiple versions of Windows to make sure they pass. It saves us the trouble of having to reboot into 10 different versions of Windows when hacking on Wine.
When I used the testbot to run my new tests, however, I found that while they passed on Wine they actually failed on Windows. Since we’re supposed to do what Windows does, no matter how stupid, that meant two problems: my new tests were bad, and Wine had a bug. Fixing the tests is simple enough – you just change the definition of “pass” – but this kind of unexpected failure can also inspire even more tests. By the end of it I had 6 patches adding different tests to just one function, 3 of which were marked “todo_wine”.
While simply submitting tests would certainly be a useful contribution, I felt like I could do more. “You found the mess, you clean it up” is an annoying cliché, but here it has a ring of truth to it: my recent experience writing these tests meant that I had become the world expert on this function. At least, for the next few days, after which I planned on forgetting it forever. That’s what good tests are for – they let us confidently ignore the internals of done code. In the off chance we break it unintentionally, they tell us exactly what’s wrong.
And so I wrote what was supposed to be my final patch: one that fixed Wine and marked the tests as no longer todo. In true open source fashion, I sent it to a friend for review, where he promptly informed me that, while my new tests were passing, I’d created a place where Wine could crash. The solution is, unsurprisingly, yet more tests to see how Windows handles the situation (keeping in mind that sometimes Windows handles things by crashing). This is typical in Wine development: your first attempt at a patch often results in mere discovery that the problem is harder to solve than you thought.
The real world
None of this actually matters, of course, unless the bug I’d fixed was actually affecting a real application that someone would want to run. Did I actually fix anything useful? I don’t know. It’s not exactly easy to get a list of all Windows applications that rely on edge-case behavior of shlwapi.dll’s StrFromTimeInterval function, but at least Wine is more correct now.
Apparent correctness isn’t the end-all of software development, of course. It’s possible doing something seemingly correct in Wine can make things worse: if my initial version of a fix slipped in to the code, for instance, an application could go from displaying a slightly wrong string to flat-out crashing. That’s why unit tests are just one part of software QA – you still need peer review of code and actual application testing.
Part of something greater
Incidentally, the whole experience reminded me of a blog post I had written over a year ago about modeling Wine development. My model was telling me that what I had just done was a bit inefficient: I made a modest improvement to Wine, but it wasn’t directly inspired by a particular real world application. Perhaps it would have been better had I tackled a more salient bug in a big name application, rather than polishing off some random function in string.c. But it wasn’t random: another developer recommended this particular code section to me because it was missing tests, and he noticed this precisely because in the past some untested behavior in a similar function was breaking a real application for him.
This function is now done. The coding was relatively simple by Wine standards – no need for expertise in COM, Direct3D, OLE, or any number of Windows conventions that O’Reilly writes entire books about. Wine doesn’t need experts: it needs a lot of grunt work from people like me. People willing to tackle one function at a time until by sheer attrition we end up with a test suite so exhaustive that everything can be simply guaranteed to work. That’s how we win in the end. That’s how real developers do it.
August 24th, 2011 in
| tags: Planet Ubuntu
Sometimes one version of Wine can run an application, but fail on others. Maybe there’s a regression in the latest Wine version, or you’ve installed an optional patch that fixes one application but breaks another.
The solution to this is to have more than one version of Wine installed on the system, and have the system determine which version of Wine is best for the application. This implies two different levels of usability – advanced users may want to configure and tweak which Wine runs which App, but mere humans won’t even want to know such a thing exists.
This is the reason why many people have created Wine front ends: they worry about things like patches and registry hacks and native DLLs so that users won’t have to. You just click a button for the application you want to install, put in the requisite disc or password, and it does all the shaman dances for you. Codeweaver’s, the chief sponsor of Wine, stays in business through sales of Crossover, which is basically just a front end to a special version of Wine.
So, these front ends exist to solve some very real and important problems. But now we have a new problem, in that we might have more than one front end — playonlinux, winetricks, and others all need to deal with this too. In true open source fashion, we need to work together and come up with a standard.
My proposed solution:
Distribution packagers like me make a separate package, say, wine-hotfixes. This package replaces (on Ubuntu via dpkg-diversions) the /usr/bin/wine binary, moving the existing one to /usr/bin/wine-default.
The new /usr/bin/wine will pass everything to wine-default, unless it detects the environment variable WINEHOTFIXES is set to something other than null. If it is set (to, say WINEHOTFIXES=”6971,12234″), then the script will look in /etc/wine/hotfixes.d/ and /etc/wine/hotfixes.conf for alternative wine versions that might make it happy. In the case of a partial match it will prioritize bugs in the listed order.
hotfixes.d will contain a series of config files, one for each alternative version of wine. These could be installed manually, but generally they’ll come from special packages — say, a version of Wine built with a workaround for that annoying mouse escape bug. Each file will give a path (say, /opt/wine-hotfixes/yokos-tweaked-wine) and which bugs it hotfixes. hotfixes.conf can specify a list of bugs that the default Wine already fixes, as well as which bugs to ignore (eg that are probably fixed by every hotfix).
Start menu items (.desktop entries) can then work exactly as they do now, except they will have the WINEHOTFIXES environment variable set, generally as created by a front end. If the user has no alternative wine versions, or no wine-hotfixes package, nothing different will happen and everything will still use the wine-default. If the user upgrades Wine to a version that fixes all the worked around bugs, the default will be used again (forward-compatible) — all that’s needed is for the newer Wine package to ship an updated hotfixes.conf.
The beauty of this is that a front end can specify a list of bugs to workaround without actually having a ready hotfix – if needed that can be handled by someone else. Similarly, the hotfixed Wines don’t actually need to know about which app they’ll be running, as wine-hotfixes will do all the matchmaking. We also keep /usr/bin free, except for one added binary.
Wrapping it all up
The real test of a design, of course, is if it can be any simpler. With the above, we’ve got it down to a single configuration item depending on who’s using it — hotfixes.d for the packager, hotfixes.conf for a manual tweaker, and the WINEHOTFIXES environment variable for the front end author.
It is of course worth asking if we should be doing this at all. Zero configurations are better than one, after all, and ideally one magic Wine package would run every application flawlessly. But that’s what we’ve been trying for years now, and people keep feeling the need to write these front ends anyway — we’re clearly not doing well enough without them, so we might as well manage them and work together. This way, at least everything is backwards (and forwards) compatible: environment variables mean nothing without wine-hotfixes, and if we ever do invent a perfect version of Wine all the applications installed by front ends will continue to work just fine.
That should wrap it up, unless I’ve missed something.
March 10th, 2011 in
| tags: Planet Ubuntu
Recently I ran into Brian Behlendorf (from Apache) at a conference on medical record systems. Brian was there demoing a new open source protocol for medical record systems to securely send eachother patient records (NHIN Direct). Combined, we were the only two who weren’t doctors, vendors, bureaucrats, or hotel staff at the conference.
I introduced myself, and Brian quickly recognized that I could probably help him with a Wine problem. He needed to run Internet Explorer 6 for the most benevolent reason of all: to prove to a client it didn’t work and that they shouldn’t bother trying to support it.
Internet Explorer in Wine
The good news is these days it’s very simple on the terminal. On Ubuntu:
- Add the Wine Team PPA:
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:ubuntu-wine/ppa
- Install the wine1.2 and winetricks packages:
sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install wine1.2 winetricks
- Run winetricks:
winetricks ie6 or winetricks ie7
- Run IE:
Using the WINEPREFIX environment variable:
Note that, just like in Windows, you cannot have both ie6 and ie7 at the same time, at least not in the same virtual C: drive. Fortunately, it is easy to set up multiple wine folders (“prefixes”) for your version of IE to run. We do this with the WINEPREFIX environment variable.
WINEPREFIX=~/.wine-ie6 winetricks ie6 to install ie6 into its own virtual C: drive
WINEPREFIX=~/.wine-ie7 winetricks ie7 to install ie7 into its own virtual C: drive
WINEPREFIX=~/.wine-ie6 wine iexplore to run ie6
WINEPREFIX=~/.wine-ie7 wine iexplore to run ie7
As an aside, Internet Explorer 8 doesn’t currently work in Wine, however once it does there will also be a winetricks ie8 for you to test with.
Those of you who have been using the Wine 1.2 betas may have noticed it looks better.
Giving Windows applications their own Icon
Today, however, I want to show you another kind of icon that until now has been represented by a boring default diamond with a question mark.
The small numbers in the corner show the version of the program when it’s available. This is a piece of metadata that Windows has supported for years, but since it’s not visible in the user interface no one’s really known about it.
The new icons will be available tomorrow in the next Wine 1.2 release candidate package from my PPA. My intention in Maverick is to include them by default, before Wine is even installed.
I’ll be honest: Wine needs your help. The above work was heavily based on community input (and code by Jan Nekvasil). I’ve got some more visual and UI changes in store for Maverick as well, but what Wine really needs is help testing its release candidate.
We need to hunt down every application that worked perfectly in older versions of Wine and make sure they haven’t broken. Literally millions of people will be using Wine’s 1.2 release for at least the next year, and if we allow even one major regression it’ll be the digital equivalent of the vuvuzela.
But while we’ve already found and fixed hundreds of regressions, there are a whole mess of applications we still haven’t tested. Wine doesn’t really have a QA team to handle this kind of thing – it’s just you and me, folks.
So please, join the Platinum Regression Hunt. It’s as simple as running your applications in Wine and telling us if they don’t work anymore.
Please, a quick favor. If you’re using a foreign locale and install Wine, you’ll probably see this:
I need the words above translated.
With the exception of a couple of languages they aren’t. The translations are Ubuntu-specific at this point: they’re neither handled upstream nor through Rosetta. I was planning to get rid of all of them (more on this later), so I never converted the menu items into our existing translation infrastructure. But removing them is delayed until Wine 1.2 in some months, so for now what we have needs to be localized and I need to handle the translation manually.
Please post translations here or in this bug report. If you can do it in patch form that’s great, if not it doesn’t matter.
April 16th, 2010 in
| tags: Planet Ubuntu
This is awkward. We need to talk.
March 3rd was a strange day. It was one day before User Interface freeze for the upcoming Ubuntu Lucid long term support release. By the end of the day we were supposed to have the entire look and feel of the desktop settled on so people could start writing documentation and books.
This was the same day that Canonical finally released the new theme that had been under secretive development. It was bold, daring, light-inspired, and perhaps most popularly, not brown. Jono Bacon, Canonical’s community manager, broke the news. Mark Shuttleworth followed up on his own blog, thanking three members of the design team for leading the effort.
The most important change, however, wasn’t actually talked about. The designers don’t blog themselves, and Mark and Jono didn’t mention it directly. It had to be found in the screenshots, or experienced firsthand by alpha testers.
This is not ok
Soon, the community learned the change was intentional: a bug about the misplaced window controls was quickly marked invalid, and when the controls briefly reappeared on the right again the change was reverted. What’s disturbing is that Planet Ubuntu has been rather silent on the topic. No one’s posted a real defense of this change yet, or for that matter even claimed responsibility. It’s like there’s this collective unease about criticizing something that feels like it came directly from on high. So, instead, people are just silent. I’d certainly be if I worked for Canonical. Perhaps I should be, as I still hope to work for them.
If you read between the lines, you can tell that people aren’t too happy about it. The most flattering thing a developer’s said about the left-sided Window controls is that they “got used to them after a few days”. We’re quick to praise the theme (it’s gorgeous), but talking about this major sudden change to the window controls feels like taboo. That’s incredibly unhealthy for a community project. It’s like there’s this collective unease and everyone’s worrying if we’re about to release something embarrassing.
This experiment was a failure and we need to realize it
The alpha releases are great places for usability experiments. Sometimes, they don’t work out. Put a new user on today’s Ubuntu Lucid and they’ll think it’s fantastic, sleek, and absolutely gorgeous right up to the point where they have to close a window. That’s where our first impression becomes something awful.
Note: The new card backs pictured above are my doing and are now default (Mads Rosendahl drew them).
A brief summary of the complaints about the left side window controls
Some of these I noticed myself, a few are gathered from various comment threads on forums and blogs over the past week.
• Because the window title isn’t centered, the window controls being placed directly in front of it put it in a weird indented position
• The “slightly off left” location is inconsistent with Nautilus, Firefox, Thunderbird, Pidgin, Empathy, and every other tabbed program we have, which have close buttons for their tabs on the right.
• The left position is inconsistent with Windows, previous versions of Ubuntu, and even OSX – users have to relearn decades of muscle memory.
• Users who interact with both Windows and Ubuntu machines (or migrate from Windows) will have a much harder time than they did before.
• The buttons are too close to the file and edit menus, making catastrophic misclicks much more likely. Closing something on accident should be as rare as possible.
• Even without misclicking, a user will have to take more time to use the window control and avoid a misclick. This is an example of Fitt’s Law.
• The close position is also inconsistent with the power button in upper right. Currently, “close it down” is something you can always do from the upper right anywhere in the system: within a tab, within a window, and even for the whole computer. The new window controls break that entirely.
• The new position leaves a lot of empty, wasted space in the upper right of most windows. While strictly speaking the amount of unused space is the same, it looks much worse when it’s all clustered together. When the controls are on the right, the extra space can function as a buffer for the potentially destructive window controls.
• Similarly, the upper left of most windows now becomes much more crowded, creating a rather unpleasing contrast to the relatively empty upper right.
• In previous Ubuntus you could close windows on the left if you really wanted, by expanding the small circle menu that’s now gone entirely. File->Quit is also an option, which is now very close to the close box.
• Gnome upstream has them on the right, causing consistency and developmental problems when we deviate. This is particularly jarring with the adoption of future projects like Gnome shell and Gnome 3, which will change again how we interact with window controls.
• The current implementation breaks themes not designed for the new button order (which is currently every theme we ship, so even changing the theme back doesn’t help)
• A day before User Interface freeze of a long term support release is the worst possible time to suddenly spring this on everyone without explanation.
• It is very difficult to change them back as we don’t have any UI tool for doing this (the current method is manually editing gconf keys)
• The new position doesn’t actually do anything beneficial.
That last point is the most important. Other than “looking different” the change doesn’t do anything helpful. It’s a huge usability loss for an awful lot of people. Some people get used to it quickly. Others don’t, and like me end up getting physically angry when trying to use their computer. I can’t remember ever having my computer make me feel this way for a long time, and I’ve been running Ubuntu alphas for five years now.
Let’s admit we have a problem
Ivanka deserves credit for being the first member of the design team to at least talk about the controls:
Are we smoking crack to think that the learning curve or getting used to a new position is ever going to be worth any real or perceived benefit of new positions?
I’ll leave that question to the reader.
I haven’t posted in a while, so I figured I’d just give a sample of the kinds of things I deal with as an Ubuntu developer.
When a Wine developer wants to implement support for playing mp3 files, the smart thing to do is to use a software library, in this case mpg123. Wine is a good example of a large and still growing piece of software with a similarly expanding list of dependencies.
It’s my job to make sure all these bits work well together so that Wine can be built in a complete way for you – without mpg123, Wine would have to be built without full support for mp3s, and sound on some apps would simply break. Sometimes this means packaging software that isn’t in the distribution yet. Usually it means fixing bugs, and here we can see the true strength of the open source approach.
It starts with a bug report
I was ready to put out a Wine release with its new mpg123 support, but Wine wasn’t building on 64 bit. This was a case where the mystery was more interesting because it was only partially broken: 32 bit worked perfectly.
I knew right away that it was probably an Ubuntu-specific issue, although other distributions (especially Debian) might also be affected. I filed a bug upstream to try and nail down the specifics. Everyone shares their relevant expertise here: a Wine developer notes that it’s a mismatched symbol-header problem, I figure out the cause is Ubuntu’s unexpected use of 32-bit headers on 64-bit systems, a community member provides a temporary workaround patch, an mpg123 developer tells why things were the way they were and how Ubuntu+Wine was the first to expose this problem, and Alexandre Julliard says what he’d ultimately like as a best practice.
This sort of collaboration is exactly what Open Source is about. Everyone involved could just go to the same bug tracker and simply get to work – it didn’t matter that all 6 of us were in different continents working for different companies on different projects. Everything is laid bare, easy to see and thus easy to fix.
Getting it done
At the end of the day, getting the fix out to users is what actually matters. It’s really disappointing when great code like mp3 support just doesn’t happens because of something silly like an out of date distribution library.
So, that’s the final step in the chain – the mpg123 developer puts out a new version of mpg123, and then I have to package that up and put it into the latest Ubuntu alpha. This is where Launchpad’s ability to have a single bug exist against multiple packages becomes especially helpful: by filing a launchpad bug I could track the changes I had to make to all 3 packages (mpg123, ia32-libs, and then wine).
Technical details for the interested
It’s worth noting that this bug could have been prevented entirely if Ubuntu had proper multiarch support. Multiarch means the ability to install 32-bit packages directly onto a 64-bit system, rather than having to use special separate 32-on-64 packages like ia32-libs. Multiarch has been a slow, gradual redesign under development in Debian and Ubuntu for years now, and it just barely missed the Lucid cycle.
This leaves us with the current implementation, which can at best be described as “a tremendous hack.” 32-bit libraries from needed packages are manually added to a giant list. Then they’re processed by a script and all thrown into one gigantic, 600+ megabyte package named ia32-libs. This means that any program which needs 32-bit compatibility (such as Wine) has to depend on this massive source package, and any time a single component changes it needs to be manually updated.
However, ia32-libs contains only the library files, not the header files, so when you build a 32-bit application on 64-bit Ubuntu you’re actually building with the header files installed from the 64-bit version of the package. This is normally fine, as most header files are identical across different architectures, however this wasn’t the case with mpg123. So we were using a 32-bit library that had different symbols than the 64-bit header file, and the build then fails with symbol errors.
There are quite a few applications for 64-bit Ubuntu that need to make use of 32-bit libraries for various reasons, however Wine is by far the most dominant. This makes me, the one responsible for Wine, also the official babysitter of ia32-libs and similarly broken packages. Wine is special in a way, though, as unlike other applications there is no way to fix it by just making it 64-bit — Wine will always need 32 bit libraries in order to run 32 bit Windows applications, which will remain incredibly common for at least another decade.
February 25th, 2010 in
| tags: Planet Ubuntu
So here’s the deal: you want to help contribute to Ubuntu in some small way but don’t want to make much effort or risk your “real” computer. Enter ISO Testing.
Basically, you burn a disk and attempt to install. If it works, you click a box, and if it doesn’t, you click another and file a bug. If the installer finished but turned everything pink and that’s not really your thing, don’t check the box for “serious”.
This is one of the best ways of helping Ubuntu that doesn’t actually involve using it. So if you have a spare computer, partition, or even VM you can basically spend about 30 minutes after downloading and submit a good test report.
To get started:
- Go here and make an account and then click about 4 buttons. There’s even a “I’ve started a test so others can try something else” feature.
- A fuller explanation is at the wiki page
Once enough people give successful ISO test reports, the Alpha is released and the coolest of us can start general testing. That’s where you actually use the installed system and test all the experimental new features like being slightly less brown. But before that can happen, testers need to know they can install and update without hassle – the daily CDs are frequently unbootable for one reason or another, so that means the alpha CDs need to be good enough to install from.
Also, here is a picture of my cat:
January 13th, 2010 in
| tags: Planet Ubuntu
Sound in Wine has been a big issue. From a user’s perspective, it didn’t work well. From a technical user’s perspective, there were 3 different drivers to choose from and none of them worked well. From a developer’s perspective, no sound driver would ever work well.
Wine was a victim of the proliferation of sound drivers on Linux.
At one point, Wine had separate sound drivers for ARTS, ESD, OSS, JACK, and ALSA. None of them worked right, even if the user could figure out how to configure Wine to use the “correct” one. Subtle changes to each API and differences between distribution versions made matters even worse.
PulseAudio was supposed to be a solution to problems like this by being the one true Linux Sound System, but in some ways it made the problem worse. Now Wine needed a separate PulseAudio sound driver, and no one wanted to write sound driver code since the whole thing was a big mess to begin with. Worse, the most work had gone into making the ALSA driver better, and there were a few technical reasons why it seemed like a good choice to stick with ALSA and use it as a default.*
So, the decision was made to go with ALSA and improve it a bit, and hope that PulseAudio’s ALSA-compatibility layer would work well enough. That didn’t exactly happen – PulseAudio didn’t actually want to support some “abuses” of the ALSA API, as one dev put it. Some users took to killing PulseAudio outright every time they wanted to use Wine.
Things got a bit political. Was Wine at fault here, or PulseAudio? Should Wine include a PulseAudio driver, even if it was poorly maintained? What would the default be? Also, what the hell were we gonna do about the Mac?
The solution, which in retrospect is pretty obvious
Wine wasn’t the only program facing this problem. Anyone writing or porting a Linux game had to answer the question about how they would play sound – almost none chose to write 7 separate audio drivers. Instead they all did the smart thing, and used a higher level library.
So, that’s the plan – Wine will use a sound library. And then we’ll let them worry about actually talking to whatever sound system happens to be working best. OpenAL is the smart choice here, for much the same reason that OpenGL was the smart choice for graphics. We get Mac compatibility “for free” too.
Now, why didn’t this happen earlier? Well, in fairness to Wine, OpenAL didn’t actually exist in a usable form until Wine already had sound drivers for a few years. A similar thing happened with wikis and distributed version control systems – we eventually saw the light that new open source projects had been following for years, and the project is better because of it.
* As I understand it, a lot of Windows programs expected to be very close to the hardware and at the time many users were having issues with PulseAudio latency.
December 24th, 2009 in
| tags: Planet Ubuntu