From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 26 05:57:58 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id FAA19750 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 05:57:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de (gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de [137.226.31.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA19728 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 05:57:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from kuku@localhost) by gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA00848; Mon, 26 Feb 1996 14:56:01 +0100 Message-Id: <199602261356.OAA00848@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de> Subject: Re: Win32 (was:Re: Go SCSI! Big improvement...) To: narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee (Narvi) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 14:56:01 +0100 (MET) From: "Christoph P. Kukulies" Cc: kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: from "Narvi" at Feb 26, 96 02:46:04 pm From: Christoph Kukulies Reply-To: Christoph Kukulies X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > > On Mon, 26 Feb 1996, Christoph P. Kukulies wrote: > > [... Start deleted ...] > > > 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" :-) > > > > I know the problems with "very good, just not that widespead" and > "ultimate crap - but people just like it". The thing between Win32 is not > that much it's usefullness - just the fact that it makes programming > things at least sensible (now where was that winmm32.dll? the way to make > win31 use 32 bit data/programs before win32s came - most people probably > even haven't heard about it as it was unuseable for programming). As I said, these 16bit anachronisms like thunking (which you are mentioning) will disappear soon. > > But to bring FreeBSD to the desktop you need a bit more than just > emulation - otherwise microsoft will be able to point and say - on the I didn't say that you have to emulate it in X (if that would work at all) I did not follow the 'Willows' thing but I have the feeling that this is getting close to what we need. > same hardware, FreeBSD runs all (counting, of course only windows > programs) programs mmuch slowlier. And also have a thing to compare Win95 > against on the charts... > > > 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. > > Ever tried Tcl/Tk? You can do the same under FreeBSD/XFree86 in at least > the same time + the tools are free. Tcl/Tk is slow. Tcl/Tk has a lot of rough edges. Partially looks ugly (too broad borders, ugly shades and colors - ok, you may argue it is customizable). Tcl/Tk is such a moving target that you better ship the Tcl/Tk version with your source which you were using when you compiled the program. Show me a good file selector box in Tcl/Tk or a tree view. Text selection sucks imho. > > > 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. > > The implementation should be native. At least as I see it, all other ways > will cause too much overhead... Anyways, at least one thing is sure - as > soon as even one enhancement gets done, it will be in the next MS product > and without any mentioning of the original authours. > > > 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 Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de > > > > Sander > --Chris Christoph P. U. Kukulies kuku@gil.physik.rwth-aachen.de