Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Jeff Spaleta
<jspaleta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>> If you can show a demo of compiling certain open source windows apps
>> so that they can work on Fedora via wine, then I can definitely argue
>> that this is no longer secondary architecture.
>>
>> I have a couple of VJ programs some friends asked about getting into
>> Fedora, all open source, but some run on windows. Being able to build
>> them on Fedora easily will make it very easy for them to create a
>> Fedora based VJ station.
> I will fight you tooth and nail on this. It might even come down to a
> Dance Dance Revolution Dance off. If we can distribute it under the
> Fedora brand, we must have a version that runs natively before we
> consider a windows cross-compiled binary that runs under wine. I
> personally draw the line there. Native first, emulated second. If
> native doesnt work, get it fixed, or its not going to be part of
> Fedora.
Frets on Fire.
Seriously, we might as well write the program over from scratch,
cannabalizing the algorithms from it as we go along. Doing that would
probably mean making a free-codec and nonfree-codec version too.
Currently, it's supported by searching in all the usual windows places
to see if codecs are installed.
Now that wine is 1.0, I think it really deserves the same pariah
status that Mono should get. It's an API controlled by a single
corporation that is not 100% documented, complex, and been
reimplemented from the inside out. Where do we draw the line between
Mono compiling EXEs and DLLs that work under .Net on Windows and a
cross compiler compiling EXEs and DLLs that work on windows without
.Net? If you really want to make this argument, why don't we draw the
line at Mono?.
If I understand your question correctly, the big difference that I see
is that .Net EXE's and DLLs (assemblies) run on any platform. AFAIK,
windows .DLLs and .EXEs will only run on wine on x86.
-Toshio