Wine=NT like DOSemu=DOS (was Re: wctype.h (was: Wine release 971221))

Wine=NT like DOSemu=DOS (was Re: wctype.h (was: Wine release 971221))

Post by David Lee Lamber » Sat, 27 Dec 1997 04:00:00





> > Btw, I'd like to again support the Wine project and thank people who
> > work on it - I think it's the only reasonable way to run Windows
> > binaries.  Virtual DOS machines (like SoftPC) are useless because of the
> > inherent lack of integration between the native OS and the virtual box.

> I'd agree with your previously expressed sentiment that DosEmu is a bad
> way to run Windows, although it seems possible (note the big potential)
> that it could be made as integrated as Wine; you can already make it
> provide a reasonable set of proxy services for file access, net,
> printing, ...

[I hope I'm not flonking a dead vampire here;  however,  one last time...]

To provide an equivalent of a PC running Windoze 3.1,  a virtual machine
(like DOSemu) will do the job fine.  That is,  if you're running an
essentially single-user,  single-tasking system,  you will probably run
the machine with only physical security anyway.  However,  in a secure,
multi-user, multi-tasking system,  it's neccessary to control access to
hardware by limiting the API anyway.  That's where Wine comes in.

The Windows Emulator,  under Linux or any other protected-mode x86 UNIX,
emulates the Windows API using standard UNIX calls -- calls that have been
optimized and cleaned for security and performance over many years.
Already,  some of wine's algorithims are less limited by their Windows
counterparts.  When Wine reaches the beta stage,  it will have the same
binary Win32 API that NT uses,  but it will be free software,  and it will
run on at least one free operating system.

David Lee Lambert   MHm 16x20   Hack Programmer and Student
Admin of lmert.dyn.ml.org           http://lmert.dyn.ml.org
My web pages are at http://web.egr.msu.edu/~lamber45

 
 
 

Wine=NT like DOSemu=DOS (was Re: wctype.h (was: Wine release 971221))

Post by Matthew J. Franci » Sat, 27 Dec 1997 04:00:00


[Topic shift, Launch! (where did all 'doze udder groups come from?)]



> > I'd agree with your previously expressed sentiment that DosEmu is a bad
> > way to run Windows, although it seems possible (note the big potential)
> > that it could be made as integrated as Wine; you can already make it
> > provide a reasonable set of proxy services for file access, net,
> > printing, ...

> [I hope I'm not flonking a dead vampire here;  however,  one last time...]

> To provide an equivalent of a PC running Windoze 3.1,  a virtual machine
> (like DOSemu) will do the job fine.  That is,  if you're running an
> essentially single-user,  single-tasking system,  you will probably run
> the machine with only physical security anyway.  However,  in a secure,
> multi-user, multi-tasking system,  it's neccessary to control access to
> hardware by limiting the API anyway.  That's where Wine comes in.

I'm not disagreeing! Wine is the best solution. (I hate arguments where both
sides are agreeing :)

What I was trying to remind was, that it is also true that DosEmu is also
sliding slowly towards the stage where it can do all those things,
non-setuid, and securely. (Albeit possibly approaching from the other direction...)
As I said, it all depends on the proxy services; programs don't have to
be able to do insecure things, but they can be allowed to _think_ they
can (While in reality security is maintained). Many things in both dos and
Windows are fundamentally this way, and the problems of doing them in DosEmu
and Wine both are similar. File and net access is indirect via Linux. Sound
is via Linux (this is AFAIK location-specific even in Wine. Unless someone
has yet written it via X sound code?). Printing is via Linux. None of these
things need be insecure, or single-user specific.

(Oops, forgot for a moment there; feel free to insert *BSD, or other x86
unices as your tastes prefer... :=P)

Although if you _really_ want to you can set up Dosemu to do things like
direct access of DOS disks, it isn't necessary, and you can set it up
to run multi-user with indirect access just as easily (lredir.sys, and so forth).
In fact that's sensible even for single-user, or you'll end up splatting your
FAT fs...

Once again for clarity : Not ideal, but _yes_ possible, even if not completely
so now.

-Matt.

 
 
 

1. Wine,wine,wine - I need help with wine

Help
I down loaded and installed Wine to Linux 2.0.22 and Xwindows (XFree).
I think it's installed correctly.  I am getting a 'drive not found/path
not found' error.  I have my wine.conf in the right place (I think).
I'm using Win95 and hda3 and Linux on hda1.  I need a reality check.  Is
it hard to set up Wine?  Does someone have a working wine.conf file that
might guide me to a working wine.   Wine,wine,wine and beer. Ok I'll
stop wineing

Thanks
George

--

--
**************************************************
*                                                *
*   -----(((( Every Dog Has His Day ))))-----    *
*       ( to stay on the porch and bark )        *
*                                                *
*                George Dunham                   *
*            "Crappy Computers Ink"              *

*     http://www.sni.net/~gdunham/gdunh.htm      *
*    arf             |\__/\                      *
*        arf arf     / oo \_                     *
*             arf    | o  | \                    *
*                arf  \()/   \   )               *
**************************************************

2. what are theses files /usr/include/.pcomp/*.h ?

3. Wine & DOSemu V.S. win 3.x & dos partition...

4. Bitmap manipulation utility with Ooomph

5. KDevelop and Wine, MFC, C++, Wine stability

6. How Fast Is Linux?

7. WINE - wine.conf

8. g++ can't find it's header fles

9. Wine or not Wine ?

10. This clone thing...am I stupid, or am I right?

11. I am with the following error, when i am running lilo...

12. Am I touchy? Or am I right?