This is just for the installer so it saves you the "install on Windows and move files to Linux" step however the Adobe suite still runs poorly in WINE.
What is preventing Microsoft from pulling an Oracle and suing Valve, CodeWeavers, or individual Wine maintainers for re-implementing Win32?
This question has been nagging at me for a while. Regardless of how much validity there is to the lawsuit, I imagine that going to trial would be supremely risky, because if you happen across anybody working on Wine that saw something they weren't supposed to, you could sink the whole project.
I cannot imagine Microsoft sitting by and quietly letting their Windows monopoly vanish between their fingers. Selling Windows may not be their primary focus these days, but why give up an advantage like that?
I'd be pretty thrilled if I could run Lightroom on Linux. Photoshop is great too but Lightroom is my main app for my biggest hobby and I've had to buy myself a whole MacBookPro just to do it without dual booting Windows, which really raises the mental barrier for me to jump in and edit photos, which makes me want to take them a lot less.
I've tried Darktable and it's pretty impressive software and could probably handle most of my needs. But apparently I'm now that old guy who's been using software X for 20 years and refuses to change his ways because it's not worth it. At least when it comes to Lightroom.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46749508
Curious if someone could enlighten me-
How much of these sorts of patches are specifically checking if a certain application is running, and then changing behavior to match what that application expects? And how much of it is simply better emulating the Windows API in general?
I think there are benefits to both approaches, not criticizing either one. I'm just curious if the implementation of a patch like this is "We fixed an inconsistency between Wine and Windows" vs "We're checking if Photoshop is running and using a different locking primitive" or whatever.