vitamin skrev:
Ove Kaaven wrote:
have many times spread incorrect information about Linux and Wine
Facts please!
OK. I didn't really plan a flamewar, I'm just making a "don't throw
stones unless you're sinless" point, and I don't really want to continue
this thread, but since I should probably back this thing up anyway, if
only for informational purposes, here's a couple of examples I've seen
(and I don't read everything). (I'm only including examples of
misinformation here, not of hostile and unhelpful attitude; finding that
is left as an exercise for the reader.)
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/2008-March/029381.html
The Linux equivalent of a named pipe is called a Unix domain socket, and
VMware will happily create those on Linux (and I doubt VMware can create
a hardware comm port outside of the VM). There's no technical reason
Wine couldn't connect to a Unix socket, if someone wrote the necessary code.
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/2008-March/029640.html
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/2008-March/029709.html
That seems to be a misunderstanding of the (L)GPL licenses. They only
apply if you *distribute* binaries. You can modify LGPL code, but you
don't have to distribute your modifications unless you distribute your
binaries to someone else. And then you only need to distribute the
source to them, not to everyone. For personal/internal use, you can keep
your modifications secret.
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/2008-March/030870.html
It's not "simple as that". Developing a version of Wine that runs on
Windows (using cygwin, for instance) isn't trivial, but should be
possible, could be useful, and some effort has already been put into it
in the past. There's no reason to shoot down the suggested project, if
he/she really wants to work on it.
And as I said, I don't plan to continue this thread. I don't really care
about this stuff, it's sins of the past. As long as things improve in
the future, and this guy learns to be a little more humble...
