Dan Kegel wrote:> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 6:55 AM, bussuser <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote: > > > Has the wine project team pondered whether to move WINE into the kernel? > > > > Yes, it's been discussed many times. > It turns out it's not worth the effort yet. > There are many lower-hanging fruit. > - Danbut Mao the leader of the Unifiedkernel said Unifiedkernel is easier than WINE. because wine is in userspace, to implemente win32 calls it "like to use a high-level language to achieve another high-level language (for example, using Cobol to achieve Fortran)". translated by google http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Flinux.insigma.com.cn%2Fjszl.asp%3Fdocid%3D122805676&langpair=zh%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:09 PM, bussuser <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote:> but ... http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Flinux.insigma.com.cn%2Fjszl.asp%3Fdocid%3D122805676&langpair=zh%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8Sadly, it looks like they used ReactOS code. This might be a problem, since some of the ReactOS code may be tainted with Microsoft copyrighted materials. (The ReactOS folks will deny this, but the Wine project does not trust their assurances.) The Wine developers are well aware that moving part of wineserver into the kernel will have performance benefits. That doesn't mean it's worth doing yet. It'd be more useful to, say, have Photoshop CS3 working, IMHO. - Dan
bussuser skrev:> but Mao the leader of the Unifiedkernel said Unifiedkernel is easier than WINE. because wine is in userspace, to implemente win32 calls it "like to use a high-level language to achieve another high-level language (for example, using Cobol to achieve Fortran)".More efficient, flexible, and powerful maybe, but "easier" sounds like a bogus argument. In fact, even in his analogy, I'm pretty sure it'd be easier to implement Fortran in Cobol than it'd be to implement it in assembly language. Performance might suffer, of course, but the very point of a high-level language is to make things easy...