Re: X client wrapper for Win apps?

[Nicholas Wourms <nwourms at yahoo dot com>]

--- Jehan <nahor@bravobrava.com> wrote:
> Keith D. Tyler wrote:
> >>More over, if you have GDI-fake->X->GDI-real, that would be quite
> ugly 
> >>for the speed.
> >
> > Wouldn't running Windows emulation under POSIX emulation under
> Windows
> > be, at best, just as bad?
> 
> Yes. That's why I'm saying:
> - if you want Windows inside X, use Linux+WINE
> - if you want X inside Windows, use Windows+Cygwin/Xfree
> 
> but I don't see the point in having Windows inside X inside
> Windows. The 
> only thing I could understand is that WINE doesn't work with all 
> application yet. But even then, hacking X because WINE doesn't work
> 
> isn't the best solution (it's far better to fix WINE instead).
> 

What about if you use hardware which linux doesn't support (and may
never support)?  Certain laptops come to mind as well as other
things, like scientific intstruments.  The point of cygwin isn't just
to make X-Windows apps run under Explorer.  It's also about providing
a posix environment, which is meshed in with Windows itself, that
people can use as an alternative to the currently available Windows
tools.  Explorer is nothing more than a bloated tool that some of us
would rather replace.  Just because we don't like one part doesn't
mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water...  I can think
of many reasons why Wine on linux will never provide for every
situation.  The point, I think, is that some of us want to use the
other 80% of the documented (and undocumented) Windows API w/o
emulation.  So what's the big deal?  Again, we know your stance, I
don't think there is anything you can say that I(we) haven't already
heard.

Cheers,
Nicholas

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com