> > On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> >
> > > WLinux however can be done fairly easily and would provide complete
> > > functionality for both Win95/NT AND Linux binaries simultaneously.
I think "fairly easily" and "complete functionality" are too strong of
phrases to use in this context. IMO these statements trivialize the
complexity of the Linux kernel and device drivers, and the interaction
between them and userland.
> The fact is, I need both Linux and Win95 for a desktop PC, no matter
> how much I dislike it. I can run two boxes to get this effect, but
> that's not viable for everyone. This is what WLinux solves.
Perhaps, but let me clarify that this is what _you_ may want, and perhaps
several others in _your_ situation. "Every" linux user will not benefit
from this. In fact, I would argue that most won't. What are the specific
uses a person would actually have for cramping Linux within a rickety
Windows box? I can really only think of one practical case that isn't
perverse, and that's Apache (but that's available for Windows anyway).
Many userspace _applications_ that can be compiled under Linux are
available for Windows already (or could be ported), so citing apps as a
motive is weak, at best. What purposes are there for running the Linux
_kernel_ under Windows?
> I AM mindful of Pick and I Don't want to turn Linux into such an
> 'application only' environment. I simply want Linux to be available
> everywhere in as many unstoppable ways as possible.
Your motive is commendable, but I'll pose the argument that this may
actually harm the promotion of Linux more than it helps. If some
dumbed-down version of a Linux-lookalike is able to limp within Windows,
how will it impact the motivation of people to use the real thing? I would
argue that trying to pass off a Windows app as some sort of "Linux in a
box" could indeed seal Microsoft's stanglehold on the OS market. This
could potentially set back the advances Linux has made over the last few
years with getting hardware and software vendors to become Linux-friendly.
Why should we do a Linux port when Linux is available for Windows? Why
should we publicly release documentation on our new ethernet/video/disk
controller when support is included in Windows and can be used by the
Linux-in-a-box through emulation?
I don't mean to step on toes with this response; it's not at all personal.
I just have some negative gut reactions to this proposal and honestly I'd
rather not see it happen.
-bp
-- B. James Phillippe <bryan@terran.org> Linux Software Engineer, WGT Inc. http://earth.terran.org/~bryan
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu