And is only good for PC. What about IBM machines, PDA(s), Suns, Macs... An x86 only Linux is not Principal-Linux.
The path is:
- Move to a different compiler on windows. Alternatives:
comu-c - (2 WML (Weeks for 1 million Lines) )
C++ builder Borland. - (Lots of COM ATL and MFC see MinGW. Lots of Win32API STL and C++ - 4 WML )
gcc (MinGW) - (Very very soon - 6 WML )
Intel c++ - ( Don't know )
- Than Winelib on Linux. If you are using Technologies unavailable in Wine/Linux, (for example speech to text). Implement it and send patches to wine.
- Maintain the projects on all platforms (Including windows) with the same compiler and Makefiles.
- Slowly step-by-step Port MFC code to wxWidgets, STL to STLPort, ATL to Atilla, msvcrt to glibc ,Win32 to POSIX. And use POSIX portability tools on Windows.
- Stop the MS tax, grow up, get Independent.
You see Wine is like High-school where you get to Revolt against your parents. And it is like collage Where you get a real education. Than you have a real Job and you get to Fly rockets to the moon. But your parents can't come.
Free Life Boaz
Ira Krakow wrote:
As many of you know, Brian and I are writing a book on Wine and Winelib for Prentice Hall. Brian's doing the Wine part; I'm doing the Winelib part.
At Wineconf, I had a number of conversations about
Winelib's role in converting Windows apps. The
consensus seems to be that the most efficient
conversion path is for much of the Windows app to stay
in Visual C++ (or whatever) and that only the modules
that specifically require native Linux calls should be
recompiled, via MinGW/Dev-C++ on the Windows side, and
Winemaker on the Linux side, into Winelib objects.
For example, if the application requires PAM
authentication, or a Linux-based help system, these
modules would be separated out and encapsulated as
Winelib objects. I was thinking of using PAM
authentication as a good example, since it works for
any authentication scheme that the application
requires.
This is the approach I plan to take. I welcome all feedback.
Thanks. Ira
