I acknowledged that that is the best solution, and that it's being
worked on, however it doesn't appear that it's going to be complete or
stable any time soon.
WLinux however can be done fairly easily and would provide complete
functionality for both Win95/NT AND Linux binaries simultaneously.
> Oh, don't forget to read the comments that follow below..
>
> Stephen D. Williams 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
> > drivers and innovative methods to safely coexist with the 'closed'
> > operating system. I call this WLinux. (By extension, WLinux95,
> > WLinuxNT.) (Some consulting company has the name 'Winux' I believe.)
> >
> > Yes, this sounds crazy and useless at first to many. Also, it's quite
> > obvious that we'd all like to run Linux natively and virtualize
> > Win95/NT. (And there are people working on that difficult task.) It
> > occurred to me that this, opposite, scenario had a lot of interesting
> > side effects.
> >
> > Benefits:
> >
> > A truly portable, shrinkwrap version of Linux that can run on any
> > Win95/WinNT machine with no regard to native device drivers.
> > (Assuming a typical application.)
> >
> > Total availability of Linux to any user.
>
> The average CrapOS user couldn't care less about Linux. If they do care
> about it, it's because Linux actually WORKS whereas CrapOS DOESN'T. Now,
> can you please tell me how to make a stable, well performing operating
> system on an unstable, badly performing one? You're predestined to fail.
I also pointed out and agreed that it would be no stabler than
Win95/NT (the latter is purportedly stable, although I think there's a
coverup involved). That is explicitly NOT the point.
For some of the perceived use, the end-user wouldn't even necessarily
know that Linux was involved. Notice that I pointed out that with
this scheme the Linux distribution would be shrinkwrap and totally
portable. In other words, an application vendor could develop for
Linux (very desirable of course) and deploy on a CDROM with a
mini-distribution of WLinux that runs transparently under Win95/NT.
> > The ability to say that Linux can run on more machines than any other
> > OS. (In other words, if Linux can run on any Win95/NT box, then it is
> > Always a superset of MS OS availability.) In any case, some suitable
> > statement could be constructed to annoy Gates.
>
> [snip]
> > Total availability of Linux to all application developers. This is
> > probably the most valuable benefit. It provides a large market for
> > Unix/Linux programs and a possible migration path.
>
> To where, from Wintendo to Unix or from Unix to Wintendo?
Migration path in the sense that if developers can write for Linux and
run ALSO on Win95/NT with WLinux, this provides a migration path for
users from an unstable OS to a stable one with the same apps.
> Economics, economics, economics: I don't want Wintendo to have all my
> Unix apps but I do want to have all the Wintendo apps on my Unix because
> that gives me a comparative advantage.
Yes, that would be great. Let me know when you have it working. I'm
ALL for it. The problem is that as soon as you have a
Win32/etc. emulation working on Linux, MS puts N*1000 programmers to
work on the next mostly incompatible 'standard' and you have to try to
keep up.
If you provide Linux binary support under Win95/NT, they can't stop
you and suddenly Linux apps are viable for the other 90% of the PC pie.
> My Linux runs everything - from Nintendo to Wintendo. Can your Wintendo
> run Linux? No? Well, I guess that means I can use all your tools to
> produce $$$ yet you can't use any of mine. I Lin - you Woose (get
> this;]).
I'm not advocating that we don't want it, only that we should tackle
the problem from both sides. Although it's non-intuitive, I feel that
supplying the backwards route has some very interesting consequences
that are only helpful.
If noone with development time agrees it probably won't get done however.
Believe me, when I have an emulator of any kind that can run Win95 and
Win32 apps under native Linux, I'll be running it everyday.
I may also be running real Linux on whatever Win95/NT machine I run
into, possibly without rebooting. Interestingly, you could
realistically say that you are just installing another app, even
though it's a complete OS. That's the subversiveness of it.
One interesting side effect is that the WLinux 'instances' are so
isolated that you could in fact run several of them without
interference.
sdw
> Andrej
>
> --
> Andrej Presern, andrejp@luz.fe.uni-lj.si
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu