You can write cross platform solution based on the newly released OOo SDK as well. Advertising over.

I totally agree with you Brad, I have deep reservations about WINE myself even though I can understand why they're doing it.

1. Assuming WINE works, won't the Windows software be running in emulation and run slower than native software?

2. There is an existing case study: Virtual PC, which runs on a Mac, allowing the user to run the Windows or Linux OS. You don't hear about Mac users going out in droves and buying Office for Windows or much else to run under Windows. I think about the only reason people use it is when they have to. Mac users are not using Virtual PC a whole lot. Why would it be different for WINE?

3. MS Office will still cost money. OpenOffice and other open-source Linix software will be free.

1. It may be somewhat slower, but not as slow as an emulator. WINE is one of those recursive acronyms, standing for "WINE Is Not an Emulator". WINE provides a Windows compatability layer than Windows applications run against.

2. I don't think you can compare WINE to Virtual PC that easily. WINE is more seamless than Virtual PC. And it's not an emulator. WINE doesn't cost anything (Virtual PC retails today for $219 - $249 US). And WINE is becoming a part of some Linux distributions where Virtual PC is a separate commercial product. And Mac users don't need to buy MS Office for Windows and run it on Virtual PC, they would buy the MacOS-native version of MS Office.

3. This isn't about commercial versus free. It's about the side-effects that the WINE project is going to have on Linux as a platform, Linux developers and Linux users. Consider:

For Linux software developers-- WINE's harmful effects: Linux users can run Windows applications on WINE, which means there isn't much frontier left on the Linux landscape. Commercial Linux companies now have to deal with competing with Windows products even though they weren't trying to in the first place. Linux developers have even fewer employment opportunities for Linux software development.

For Windows software developers-- WINE's helpful effects: without the need to target Linux specifically, the Windows developer can concentrate on Windows and let the Linux 'fringe' run his Windows apps if they want to. And now, without even trying, they're making money from Linux users too. Those proceeds go towards more Windows development instead of Linux. Developers have no reason to learn how to program for Linux.

For Linux users-- WINE's Harmful effects: instead of companies writing Linux versions of their software, they expect Linux users to run their Windows applications on WINE. It runs OK, but doesn't take full advantage of the Linux platform.

For Windows users-- WINE's helpful effects: With WINE in place, fewer companies will be wasting their time and dollars with distracting Linux development, which means more R&D and polish goes into Windows products.

For Linux as a platform-- WINE's harmful effects: WINE hurts the Linux platform by allowing Windows applications to run on Linux. It adds capability to Linux, but to the detriment of Linux itself. Companies may look to try out Linux with this support for Windows, but they find that their commercial software isn't supported by the manufacturer if it's running under Linux (and in some cases, doing so is in violation of the EULA).

For Windows as a platform-- WINE's helpful effects: WINE supports the Windows platform by allowing Windows applications to run on Linux.

Now, as a software developer, I'm all about solving problems. Because of that, I abhor "stop energy", but I think this is an important topic that needs to be thought about.

Just for the sake of argument, replace Linux with MyFavoriteFreeOS and replace Windows with SomeOtherCommercialOS. In this light, this discussion boils down to the fact that the free OS suffers from heavy competition of the commercial OS - all because most of the so-called 'popular applications' just don't run (well enough) on the free OS. This is not an issue of OS, it's an issue of (a lack of) platform-indendance of software.

I think the reason behind that issue is a result of the lack of (goood) cross-platform support in development suits. There are all kinds of issues that need to be solved to overcome this problem. Issues like hardware abstraction, cpu independance, library availability, etc.
Some initiatives seem like a good step in the right direction (like Java and - I must say - .Net).
Developers need to get the opportunity to chose from a wide variety of cross-platform languages and tools, for them ever to produce cross-platform software. If this goal every gets reached, free software can finally start competing with commercial software on equal terms.

So far my 5 cents.