Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 12:06:44 +0100 (MET) From: Christoph Kukulies <kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE> To: narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee (Narvi) Cc: kuku@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE, coredump@nervosa.com, jehamby@lightside.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Win32 (was:Re: Go SCSI! Big improvement...) Message-ID: <199602261106.MAA00533@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960226114838.4058D-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> from "Narvi" at Feb 26, 96 11:59:36 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > On Mon, 26 Feb 1996, Christoph P. Kukulies wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 25 Feb 1996, Jake Hamby wrote: > > > > > > > porting FreeBSD programs over to Win32, so I'll post my progress on that > > > > > > > > ---Jake > > > > > > Why don't you go the other way (win32 -> freebsd) ;-) > > > > I think one has to considerate this sincerely. Is anyone following what's > > the Wine project is heading? I think that Win32 on top of a rock solid > > OS like FreeBSD would be a perfect marriage. I see a strong need for a > > unified GUI in the Unix world and be it Win32. Wait two years and all > > existing 16bit and segmentation anachronisms will be thrown overboard. > > Then we will face a exploding Win32 world (under a merged WinNT4.0 and > > Win97). It's time to wake up. > > A point about which I must disagree... Win32 is not as good. Perhaps it "Win32 is not as good" - maybe, maybe not. You see best the effect of "what is good" and what is used widespread when you compare L*n*x with FreeBSD with FreeBSD is standing for "what is good" :-) Win32 is strong at existing software base, MFC, GUI, MSVC++ IDE, debuggers, bitmaps/bitblt. I don't like it particularly, I just see it's impact on the industry. It would be a snap to construct a GUI based FreeBSD installation dialog under MSVC/MFC, at least what the outer appearance is concerned. A Win32 implementation could be native and maybe server client based as well. I don't know how far off an emulation of the Win32 PE format (portable executable) under FreeBSD would be. While we are at it, what can 'Willows' supply here? > will never be (just think about DOS - it *did* become better over the > time of it's existence). If the things go on as they are now, IMHO > FreeBSD will have better SMP support than Win32... > > Emulating another system is never as good as running in native mode, no > matter how hard you try. How about making headers and libraries which > would allow you to compile you win32 code for FreeBSD and X11 with little > to no changes? It would allow all those shareware people list that their > products are available for several platrorms, one of which is real unix :) > > Sander. > > > > > > > > > > > == Chris Layne ============================================================== > > > == coredump@nervosa.com ================= http://www.nervosa.com/~coredump == > > > > > > > > > > --Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de > > > > PS. It is actually not a challenge to anybody to start Win32 support... > So please no flames. > > --Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602261106.MAA00533>