On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Ben Klein <shackl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/26 King InuYasha <ngomp...@gmail.com>: > > Now that Nautilus has the desktop file requiring execute bit, I have a > > question for all of you to consider. Do JAR files require the +x bit to > load > > them, or are they treated like associated files and run through the > > interpreter? Really, Windows apps on Linux is basically the same > situation > > as Java applications run through the bytecode interpreter. > > You just answered your own question. Java is interpreted and has to be > passed through a compatible byte-code interpreter. Wine does not > interpret PE files in this fashion, and cannot because it is not and > does not have a CPU emulator. So a JAR file should run if passed as an > argument to the interpreter, just like what happens with the scripting > languages that open the file for reading instead of trying to fork and > execute. > > But, doesn't Wine translate Win32 calls into its equivalent calls for Linux? GDI to X11, D3D to OpenGL, etc.? That sounds like an interpreter to me. It may not necessarily a bytecode interpreter, but it still interprets the Win32 API and translates it to the appropriate UNIX APIs. Isn't this what makes Wine not an emulator?