Mandrake is not _ONLY_ targeted at "newbies", and describing wine as an emulator when it's not (WINE still stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator;) will make "hackers" think of us as stupid;) anyways, it's not harder than just grab the description from winehq.com/about
From winehq.com/about: "Wine is an implementation of the Windows Win32 and Win16 APIs on top of X and Unix. Think of Wine as a Windows compatibility layer. Wine provides both a development toolkit (Winelib) for porting Windows sources to Unix and a program loader, allowing many unmodified Windows 3.x/95/98/ME/NT/W2K/XP binaries to run under Intel Unixes. Wine works on most popular Intel Unixes, including Linux <http://www.linux.org/>, FreeBSD <http://www.freebsd.org/>, and Solaris <http://www.sun.com/solaris/>. Wine does not require Microsoft Windows, as it is a completely alternative implementation consisting of 100% Microsoft-free code, but it can optionally use native system DLLs if they are available. Wine comes with complete sources, documentation and examples and is freely redistributable. (The licensing terms <http://source.winehq.com/source/LICENSE>are the GNU Lesser General Public License.)" This should explain it good enough that most linux users understand what it's for, and if it's still not good enough it's just to explain it better, but still, claiming that wine is an emulator, when it's not, well... it's kinda .. From the wine package "%description This is an ALPHA release of Wine, the MS-Windows emulator. This is still a developers release and many applications may still not work. This package consists of the emulator program for running windows executables. Wine is often updated." I actually don't think this explains it much better for those without much technical knowledge, and naming Wine "the MS-Windows emulator", that's actually quite stupid. Anyways the explanation from winehq is better and correct, and probably not more confusing for a new user than the one from the wine package Ben Reser wrote: >On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 01:42:57AM +0200, Philippe Coulonges wrote: > > >>In my response, I mistaken your message and the one from Ben Reser. >>Rereading it, it may look like you're the one that don't understand the >>difference, but he is. >> >> > >I most certianly *DO* understand the difference. But you're applying >the term emulator to only processor emulation which is certainly a fine >distinction that maybe hackers make, but the dictionary and common users >do not make! And considering that for the most part Mandrake is for >common users not hackers (though some of us use Mandrake) we should be >using language common users understand not elitist hacker definitions. > > >
