Re: X client wrapper for Win apps?

[Jehan <nahor at bravobrava dot com>]

Ah, Nicola. It has been a while since we had a sparing discussion :)


Nicholas Wourms wrote:
> > Oh nice! I'll then look forward to the new Windows service pack and
> > the 
> > number of new posts in the mailing about XFree being broken after
> > the 
> > upgrade.
> So?  Your point?  It can be fixed and rereleased.  You forget that
> this isn't a CD distro, it's a net distro.
My point is that XFree might see it's own user32.dll replaced by the one 
from Windows SP X. So XFree isn't really broken, it just saw its dll 
replaced.
But I'm not even sure that one would be able to apply the service pack 
in the first place. The service pack installer migh not recognized the 
dll and refused to install itself because of that.


> > But I have a better idea, replace the kernel32.dll with our own
> > that 
> > will convert Windows calls into a Linux/BSD/Un*x calls. That way, 
> > instead of having Windows window showing in Xfree running in
> > Windows, 
> > you'll just have Windows on top of Xfree. We would also have a
> > perfect 
> > Unix layer for Windows then, we won't need Cygwin anymore, we would
> > use 
> > Linux/BSD/Un*x directly. It will also add to the 
> > security/performance/whatever.
>
> No, because then you have done what ReactOS is doing.  This is
> different...
I don't know ReactOS. I've seen screenshots not a long time ago but I 
haven't read anything about it.


> > Oh wait, that's WINE isn't it? ;)
> No it isn't, because you are still accessing the other Windows dll's
> for function calls, which is the whole point.  Can you run MS Visual
> Studio in WINE?  I think not... 
Currently, MS Visual Studio doesn't run inside Cygwin/XFree either. 
Between writing a new user32.dll and fixing WINE (which already has 
written a new user32.dll, at least partially), I think it would be 
better to fix WINE, it's far less work.


> Getting rid of Explorer window
> manager and server, replacing it with X11 is the ultimate goal.  You
> still want to maintain the library compatibility though. We
> *already* know your position regarding this from the last time it was
> discussed.  You may not be interested, but there are others who are. 
> So, unless you have something to contribute (other then rants and
> faulty arguments), why not give it a rest?  :-P
Well, last time, you said that a rootless XWindow system was useless. 
With it, Windows app wouldn't be hidden behind the X Root window. You 
could then use any desktop shell you want. The only remaining issue 
would be the make the pager aware of the Windows window (and that should 
be pretty much trivial using the EnumWindows function)

	jehan