Wine 5.5 Released With Expanded UCRTBase C Runtime Usage, Usual Assortment Of Fixes

[onlyLinuxLuvUBack]

Github would be fantastic

Why? WHY?

muncrief Please,
Could you please shutdown that evil m$ owned github and host it in the EU (Where everyone is welcome) ...

https://codeberg.org/

[TemplarGR]

Oh yes. And it's quite portable because I got so sick and tired of constantly rewriting stuff in Python and other ridiculously ever changing languages that it's written in Bash. And I've also always refused to use Java because, as an embedded systems designer who primarily coded in assembly and C, I believe Java is the most ridiculous "programming language" ever conceived.

In fact I just recently completed a full arbitrary multi-dimensional array Bash module I'm integrating into it to make some parts cleaner and more versatile. However the currently working version does not use the MDA module yet.

I have to warn you though that not only is it very complicated, it also requires the use of mergerfs to virtualize the ~/Desktop, ~/.config/menus, ~/.local/share/applications, ~/.local/share/desktop-directories, ~/.local/share/icons. and ~/.local/share/mime directories. It also utilizes multiple general purpose standard script modules that I use for numerous other things.

But just tell me where and I'll be happy to send you the whole shebang!

Yeah yeah, all that language bashing wasn't needed, it makes you look ridiculous and amateur, really... Java is awesome, just because you don't work with it, doesn't mean it is a bad language. The advancements of modern software in the last 3 decades wouldn't be possible if people were using just assembly and C, so get a fucking grip and stop trolling in order to feel important.

[dacha]

Oh yes. And it's quite portable because I got so sick and tired of constantly rewriting stuff in Python and other ridiculously ever changing languages that it's written in Bash. And I've also always refused to use Java because, as an embedded systems designer who primarily coded in assembly and C, I believe Java is the most ridiculous "programming language" ever conceived.

You can't argue you hate rewriting stuff in ever-changing languages, and then bash Java, which has an extremely stable API, ABI and class library, which will still run 25 year old JARs compiled in 1995. Java is more stable and backward-compatible than libc.

Many of my Wine-related tools are written in Java precisely for that reason: written in 2011, they still build and run today.

[FPScholten]

@muncrief: I am impressed by your BASH coding skills!

[TemplarGR]

@muncrief: I am impressed by your BASH coding skills!

Technically it is BASH scripting skills, not coding. But sure he BASHES real good.

[muncrief]

You can't argue you hate rewriting stuff in ever-changing languages, and then bash Java, which has an extremely stable API, ABI and class library, which will still run 25 year old JARs compiled in 1995. Java is more stable and backward-compatible than libc.

Many of my Wine-related tools are written in Java precisely for that reason: written in 2011, they still build and run today.

I should have been more clear dacha, and your misunderstanding is justified as the structure of my original comment is ambiguous.

I don't dislike Java because of backwards compatibility issues, as you correctly stated it's done quite a good job at that. I dislike it because of the inefficiency of the language itself, one of the the most oft sited examples being its lack of things like true multi-dimensional arrays. I also disagree with its semi-object oriented implementation, but then again I dislike object oriented languages in general.

And yes, I've heard the myriads of arguments back and forth, both for and against, the compromises made in its attempt to be a "write once run anywhere" language. I just land on the side of those who feel its a bad implementation of what could have been. And full disclosure, I was working on my own WORA system in the 90s that I felt was much better, but once Java was introduced interest in other WORA systems evaporated because at the time Sun Microsystems was a monster that smaller developers simply could not compete with.

And I think Android is a great example of how bad Java truly is. We have phones with fantastically powerful processors and incredible amounts of memory, far beyond anything any of us in the 80s and 90s would have thought possible, but the power of these systems is literally strangled by the overhead and inefficiency of Java.

However I also understand that at this point any arguments over it are moot, as Java is here and is not going away anytime soon. And yes, I also understand it's improved since the 90s, but my critique of it basically remains the same.

I also want to be clear that I'm not blaming Java for the dismal portability of Android and incredible amount of work that must be done to adapt Android to new hardware. I believe that fault rests directly upon the shoulders of Google.

So if I have to use an inefficient language without simple things like multi-dimensional arrays, and still maintain backwards compatibility, I prefer Bash because I find it much more versatile and adaptable, and easier to use. But to each his own. I understand mine is a minority opinion and that's fine, as I've never been one to go along with a crowd simply because it's bigger.

[ssokolow]

Oh yes. And it's quite portable because I got so sick and tired of constantly rewriting stuff in Python and other ridiculously ever changing languages that it's written in Bash. And I've also always refused to use Java because, as an embedded systems designer who primarily coded in assembly and C, I believe Java is the most ridiculous "programming language" ever conceived.

Thanks though I'll have to say "to each his own" there. Personally, I found it much less effort to maintain a Python program than a comparably portable bash one... even before "it'd be nice for non-POSIX-specific bits to be easily available for Windows users too".

(I've actually tried it in the past, but I found it annoying to have to track down and adjust for the various differences between GNU, BSD, and BusyBox versions of commands that Python has built-in. I also prefer try/finally to trap.)

I'll probably have to port the relevant bits to either Python (because that's how I do memory-safe Qt frontends) or Rust (because it makes it easy to write a memory-safe backend library which exposes bindings for many different languages) to incorporate them into my project.

In fact I just recently completed a full arbitrary multi-dimensional array Bash module I'm integrating into it to make some parts cleaner and more versatile. However the currently working version does not use the MDA module yet.

Arrays and quoting has always been one of the things that annoyed me about Bourne-family shell scripting.

I have to warn you though that not only is it very complicated, it also requires the use of mergerfs to virtualize the ~/Desktop, ~/.config/menus, ~/.local/share/applications, ~/.local/share/desktop-directories, ~/.local/share/icons. and ~/.local/share/mime directories. It also utilizes multiple general purpose standard script modules that I use for numerous other things.

Not a problem. I was actually planning to use something like mergefs or overlayfs to get the final word in the face of games like The Escapists which want to put un-hidden data folders in $HOME so badly that they use getpwnam or getpwuid to ignore wrapper scripts which do something like export HOME=$HOME/.local/share/game_name.

I know the README file doesn't look very good right now, but all the ridiculous "markdown" crap that's been incorporated into everything over the years really pisses me off, and every time I try to do something simple I end up having to look everything up again and spend five times as long as it would take if systems simply recognized normal punctuation and text. I mean really, sheesh! I've always considered it a case of youngsters having way too much time on their hands to do worthless things

But when I have more time I'll format it correctly, and of course add instructions on how to set the system up. But this should give anyone interested enough to ponder for now

It chooses a renderer based on the file extension. I think giving it a .txt extension should be all you need to get what you want out of it. (The supported fancier options are listed at https://github.com/github/markup#markups.)

Oh my god, github is even applying markdown to the code files! Sheesh again!. Anyway there's a "raw" button that almost makes the code files intelligible, but I'd recommend downloading any files you're interested in and opening them in a real text editor with the tab width set to 3. I actually spend an inordinate amount of time formatting my code files beautifully, but markdown destroys that.

In fact my code files would really, really, piss Linus off because I've heard he despises beautifully formatted code

I'm not sure what you mean about markdown and code. What I see looks like pretty standard syntax-colorized monospace code display like you'd get out of something like Vim or Emacs. If you want to alter the tab width, GitHub's web preview honors .editorconfig files.

[ssokolow]

Okay, the initial upload is at https://github.com/muncrief/wine-manager.

...actually, would you mind adding a license? As-is, GitHub's Terms of Service grants a license for me to look at it but not really do anything else, but, if I do, any code in a similar vein that I write after doing so is legally iffy if it ever comes up.

Just toss a file named LICENSE or COPYING into the root of the repo with the text of your chosen license... preferably something GPL-compatible. GitHub prefers to auto-detect that rather than having a metadata drop-down.

If you're not sure, GitHub's https://choosealicense.com/ is good and simple.

If you don't care so much that you want to give up your copyright and put it into the public domain, I prefer the Creative Commons CC0 rather than the Unlicense or the WTFPL because it was put together by legal professionals and includes a fallback "I grant you permission to do anything" license that kicks in for jurisdictions which don't recognize prematurely giving up your copyright.

[muncrief]

...actually, would you mind adding a license? As-is, GitHub's Terms of Service grants a license for me to look at it but not really do anything else, but, if I do, any code in a similar vein that I write after doing so is legally iffy if it ever comes up.
.

Okay, I added the GNU General Public License Version 3. I hope I chose the appropriate one, and please let me know if I didn't.

My goal is to allow anyone to use the code as they wish so long as they don't charge money for it, and I'm not legally liable for anything. It would be nice if they attributed the original source to me, but that's not a strict requirement.

But I've never been good at much other than hardware/firmware/software design, writing in defense of humanity, and composing music and singing. So who knows what the heck I just did!

[ssokolow]

Okay, I added the GNU General Public License Version 3. I hope I chose the appropriate one, and please let me know if I didn't.

My goal is to allow anyone to use the code as they wish so long as they don't charge money for it, and I'm not legally liable for anything. It would be nice if they attributed the original source to me, but that's not a strict requirement.

But I've never been good at much other than hardware/firmware/software design, writing in defense of humanity, and composing music and singing. So who knows what the heck I just did!

You probably chose the best match for what you're trying to accomplish.

You won't find a "so long as they don't charge money for it" license because all three major definitions of what a qualifying license is (the FSF's Four Software Freedoms, the OSI's Open Source Definition, and the Debian Free Software Guidelines) prohibit restrictions on fields of endeavour, but a copyleft license like the GPL is a good surrogate for that, because:

1. It applies to derivative works, so any code you combine with it must also be distributable under the GPL. (MIT and BSD licenses are GPL-compatible because they don't require anything the GPL doesn't and they don't prohibit the additional requirement the GPL adds.)
2. It requires the ability for anyone who's received a copy to receive and share the source under the GPL, so charging for the software induces people to acquire a copy and then provide it for free unless you're actually charging for a service, like support or automatic updates.

(Plus, the legal definition of "commercial use" is very hazy, so people worry that they might get in trouble for using non-code content under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-* licenses if their dinky little blog happens to have an AdSense ad on it to try to offset hosting costs and the general recommendation is to, as with the GPL, rely on the ShareAlike versions of the licenses to disincentivize parasitic commercial use.)

All major FSF, OSI, or Debian-approved licenses will include that waiver of liability that you want and I believe everything except the "licenses" intended to be public domain dedications have at least some weak form of attribution requirement... though the weakest ones just require that you leave any copyright statements in comments/docstrings in the code intact.

The only way you could offer it to a wider range of people without making it more attractive for commercial reuse is to make it compatible with packages that licensed themselves "GPLv2 only" rather than "GPLv2 or later", but that's more complicated because the "or later" is part of the license declaration you're supposed to put in each file, not part of the license itself. (Also, allowing GPLv2 allows contributors to contribute without being legally bound to grant a license to any patented things they might add.)