Messages in this thread | | | From | "Stephen D. Williams" <> | Subject | Re: WLinux, kinda [OFFTOPIC] comment | Date | Sat, 28 Mar 1998 10:22:18 -0500 (EST) |
| |
The major difference between the WLinux idea and GNU-Win32 (which I really like BTW) is that the latter is a library/service layer and requires recompilation, while the former can run 'off the shelf' Linux binaries (for the same CPU of course). This is a BIG difference.
As a comparison, there are many libraries that allow you to recompile Windows apps for Unix, but you don't see many apps ported with it.
This is a way for one OS to coexist with another with only the devices emulated when needed.
sdw
> The WLinux already (kind of) exists- its called GNU-Win32 by Cygnus Solutions - > http://www.cygnus.com/misc/gnu-win32/ > It is a GPL'd, fully POSIX compliant version of GNU tools that runs under 95 > and NT, including bash, gcc, etc. Just about any UNIX program should compile > under it, though it is still in beta. It did result in the first > implementation of Kerberos under NT, for instance. It's probably not worth the > time to develop WLinux when this is available, even though it doesn't run linux > binaries. But a linux binary loader in conjunction with gnu-win32 would work > nicely....... > > Joe Malicki > > Ragnar Hojland Espinosa wrote: > > > > The WLinux idea (high level): > > > > > > Create a configuration and distribution of Linux that will run 'under' > > > Win95 and WinNT using virtual device stubs to access native device > > > > Sounds like a decent idea but.. Have you taken into account the fact that > > when windows crashes (heh) so will WLinux? Besides, call me paranoid if > > you want, but if you give problems to Gates be sure he'll find a way to > > either buy it or make it useless with some new feature that is needed > > for windows to work and that renders WLinux unoperative. > > > > Let's face it, if all keeps going the way it's going now, we'll soon see > > how microsoft really dominates the pc scene both in the software and > > hardware layer, and as stated in linux-kernel before, linux users will > > have to use sucky win98 stuff, use alternative (and prolly low > > performance) hardware or move to some other architecture. > > > > If ms can scare OEMs enough so they keep installing IE, or to keep silence > > of why they don't install it, and with all that win98/pc99 rumours > > floating around, why don't you think we are about to say bye to our x86? > > > > - "Hey look, this new card is for windows and only $xx!" > > - "Yes, but it's braindead and will hurt your performance. Take that one > > over there. Besides, it's not an ope.." > > - "Why that one?" > > - "Because it's better, sinc.." > > - "But I can do the same with this one, it's cheaper, and its for windows!" > > > > Just because windows has such a big share of the OS market, in who do you > > think manufacturers will focus? Joe Winloser, or Joe Linuxer? With who do > > you feel they will make more money? > > > > Of course, it might result in people buying more, say, alphas, and the > > price of those alphas going doooown even more so the price/performance > > ratio is quite more competitive and incentivates people to buy. Me? Nobody > > is going to force me to use such $%^# hardware (and by extension, only > > what Gates wants me to run), and I hope there are more people out of there > > with the same opinion. > > > > *sigh* Long Live Linux! :) .. and sorry for the rambling. > > > > ____/| Ragnar Hojland (tech.support@redestb.es) [LLL] Fingerprint 94C4B > > \ o.O| 2F0D27DE025BE2302C > > =(_)= "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for 104B78C56 B72F0822 > > U chaos and madness await thee at its end." hkp://keys.pgp.com > > > > - > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > > >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |