Re: Wlinux vs. LWin95, looking at the alternative

Stephen D. Williams (sdw@lig.net)
Tue, 7 Apr 1998 19:16:37 -0400 (EDT)


> Hi Stephen.
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>
> > I agree with this. It's easy to point out that Linux servers run
> > for months without rebooting, and easy to make the connection that
> > any 'GPF's are Windows' fault, not Linux's.
>
> You either have far more trust in windows users, or far less
> experience of them, than I have. As far as most Windows users are
> concerned, a GPF is the fault of the program that was running at the
> time, even if the error message says otherwise...

Just unreasonably optimistic.... ;-)

> Personally, I'd far sooner see Win95 or Win98 ported to Linux than the
> other way round - then we'd have something worth boasting about...

Of course, but it's not easy. Win95/98 has a fat, ugly OS interface
and memory model.

On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, it might be possible to
make Linux the more native OS and Win95 the more virtualized OS. If
ALL of the Win95 devices were virtual devices to Linux, then only
memory management and processor mode remains to be dealt with. What
if Linux reserved most of upper memory and fooled Win95 into believing
that there was less memory (easy due to the reliance on Bios)?

If Win95 didn't step on Linux's memory, then only reliable periodic
transfer of control from Win95 back to Linux would be needed, along
with the virtual device drivers, to virtualize Win95.

It would even be possible for Linux to swap Win95 instances into lower
memory.

> Best wishes from Riley.

sdw

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu