> > > 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
> > What's that to do with Linux? The GNU tools aren't any OS-centered, they also
> > exist on DOS, OS/2 and all Unices out there. And you don't say that OpenDOS
> > with the full suite of GNU tools is an DOSLinux ;)
>
> No, but I'm saying that with GNU-Win32, there isn't a whole lot of need for
> WLinux......and it is completely compatible after a recompile.
As long as all you care about are the GNU tools and not the OS you're using...
> > > run linux binaries. But a linux binary loader in conjunction with gnu-win32
> > > would work nicely.......
> > No, it wouldn't work at all. What's the binary loader for when you don't have
> > the OS that the binary's been compiled for? You'd need a Linux emulator for
> > windowz to run it. The GNU tools have nothing to do with it.
>
> You don't need a full emulator....... The main thing GNU-Win32 provides is a DLL that
> turns POSIX calls into Win32 calls.... my point was use a binary loader that uses
> that DLL for most of the calls, and a syscall emulator that could also call their DLL
> (I think its like Cygwin.DLL or something like that). It would cut out a LOT of the
> work required for a Linux emulator, since only a binary loader and syscall-trapper
> would be needed.
That's right, but the perspective is rather sad and depressing don't you
think? It still wouldn't be Linux...
TTYL(r), marek
---
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the
laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes."
Friedrich Nietzsche
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu