> * uses a unique brand of logic in drawing conclusions. How
> he/she ever came to the point of saying that more use of
> Wine would result in less use of Linux, I'm not even going
> to try to understand. :0)
What he means is that if application _writers_ can write for both
Linux and Windows using the same API they will do so instead
of doing a native port. Whether this is true or will be true,
is another matter. Furthermore even if true, it is in itself
indendent on whether Linux will success or not. In what way does
in itself hurt Linux if Win32 becomes the dominant GUI API instead
of Qt or GTK+ or whatever?
However using this that he tries without further proof to draw the
conclusion that
(1) This is bad for Linux
(2) _Users_ will be less likely to use Linux if more applications
are available.
I strongly disagree on point (1) and claiming (2) is totally insane.
> Even less comprehensible is
> the suggestion that Wine is "inside out", so to speak, and
> that what's really needed/would be really effective is a
> "Linux emulator" for Windows. Now there's a concept, and
> one which demonstrates that Weston must not know a great deal
> about the natures of the 2 OSes in question. I can't, for
> instance, even begin to imagine how such a piece of
> software would handle things like the differences in the
> structures of the file systems of the 2 OSes, or the
> differences in how they handle GUIs (i.e., X on one side
> of the fence but not the other ...)
Agreed, but these are the easy issues. The harder ones like how to
implement syscalls like clone are much worse.
I'm not sure clone even _theoretically_ could be implemented using
the Win32 API and this is just _one_ example.
> Anyway, I competely agree with what seems to be the growing consensus
> at Wine HQ that Weston is full of beans.
Agreed. Furthermore OS Opinion seems to have all sort of strange
people as writers.
