WLinux is something you write once. I don't WANT to write Win32 apps...
In anycase, that's only one use of WLinux, there's also the learning,
'trying it out' situations, and a number of others where having a true
Linux environment would be very useful.
> > > Economics, economics, economics: I don't want Wintendo to have all my
> > > Unix apps but I do want to have all the Wintendo apps on my Unix because
> > > that gives me a comparative advantage.
> >
> > Yes, that would be great. Let me know when you have it working. I'm
> > ALL for it. The problem is that as soon as you have a
> > Win32/etc. emulation working on Linux, MS puts N*1000 programmers to
> > work on the next mostly incompatible 'standard' and you have to try to
> > keep up.
> Well, that's probably true... But that way we'll keep the competition ;-))
>
> > If you provide Linux binary support under Win95/NT, they can't stop
> > you and suddenly Linux apps are viable for the other 90% of the PC pie.
> No. As you yourself said above, the average user wouldn't even know s/he's
> running (W)Linux. Even if s/he realized that the application has some
> different format than the others, he'd probably think that this is some "new
> and excellent Micro$oft invention! Wow, these guys are great - that software
> RUNS!!" - would it be Linux or Winblows advocacy?
Yes, I've thought of this, and it is a possibility. That's why being
the virtualizer not the virtualizee is so important. In this case
however, Linux would only virtualize device drivers and be native otherwise.
> > > My Linux runs everything - from Nintendo to Wintendo. Can your Wintendo
> > > run Linux? No? Well, I guess that means I can use all your tools to
> > > produce $$$ yet you can't use any of mine. I Lin - you Woose (get
> > > this;]).
> >
> > I'm not advocating that we don't want it, only that we should tackle
> > the problem from both sides. Although it's non-intuitive, I feel that
> > supplying the backwards route has some very interesting consequences
> > that are only helpful.
> I think that the only consequence would be winning more market for Micro$oft -
> the wouldn't announce that the non-crashing and better applications aren't
> their own, but created by independent vendor(s).
You can look at it either way. In fact, you could just as easily
argue that it's increasing Linux's market share. As I mentioned
earlier, you could get to the point where Linux was running on more
desktops than Win95. (If you got most of the Win95 desktops to run
WLinux for any reason, this would be true.)
This would be a very forceful and influencing statement to make.
> > Believe me, when I have an emulator of any kind that can run Win95 and
> > Win32 apps under native Linux, I'll be running it everyday.
> WINE's pretty good already.
Last I looked (about a month ago on the official websites) it wouldn't
even come close to running Corel Draw/Paint, AOL Client, MS
Word/Excel, WordPerfect, etc.
sdw
> TTYL(r), marek
> ---
> "Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the
> laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes."
> Friedrich Nietzsche
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu