You make the linux kernel able to run windows binaries natively. No, not like Wine which is effectively a glorified interpreter and in effect a very high level emulator (whatever its name implied for the contrary) and anyone experienced in emulators knows that high level emulation is inaccurate and usable which explains why Wine is such an unworkable mess everyone hates if he has to actually use it.
No, the true destruction will come by running them purely natively on the kernel with any dlls also running purely natively with very generic redirections of windows api calls.
Microsoft tries the same with "Windows subsystem for Linux"; more like "Windows subsystem to destroy Linux". Don't let them do it first.
Oh, yes, of course! It's so simple! Why did nobody think of this sooner!
Ryan Thomas
>binary compatibility with wintrash Oh yeah, can’t wait to have all those viruses.
James Lee
They did, but it's hard to do. But, Wine is such a fucking mess that everyone hates that might be less work than actually doing it kernel-side anyway.
Parker Wood
You are brainlet, the purpose is not to use windows binaries perpetually, but to make booting to windows completely useless. If everyone does that then Microsoft will have no reason to exist and binaries for linux will gradually replace everything.
Then the communist state will be realized.
Christian Foster
Wine stands for "Wine is not an emulator" and in fact is NOT an emulator. It mimics the Window's file structure and essentially does what you're describing. What you might want is a distro based around Wine.
Nolan Cook
Are you aware that you can use official Windows dlls in Wine?
The problem is, the closer you get to Windows NT system calls and further away from documented APIs, the more reverse engineering you have to do, and it's not clear emulating the Windows NT kernel (which is a bloated mess and handles about everything in the system) is in any way easier than just emulating the user facing APIs.
Not to mention that the dlls are likely to make a lot of assumptions about the system, and you would have to also run Microsoft's svchost.exe and any other executables that are supposed to be running on the system at all times.
Gavin Thompson
>You make the linux kernel able to run windows binaries natively
Oh is that all?
Anthony Clark
wine is not an emulator nor an interpreter you breathing bag of human shit. Go read a wikipedia page before posting you dumb fuck
Zachary Sanders
You are brainlet, I explicitly addressed that. They pretend it's not an emulator but it's near the concept of High Level Emulators because the definition of them is not very technical but only "it immitates the result of the original system" which is exactly what Wine does.
The problem of High Level Emulator, or simulation, call it what you will, is that it tends to be - usually - extremely inaccurate.
Daniel Ward
Not OP, but it IS an emulator. It's not a CPU emulator, but it emulates the Windows APIs on Linux, just like QEMU emulates the x86 CPU on ARM.
Dominic Lopez
I had the idea that you could support EXE's on Linux by patching syscall numbers with new compatible syscalls that Linux would need on load.
Zachary Campbell
>The linux kernel able to run windows binaries
>Make the NT kernel able to run unix binaries
This is how retarded you sound. On a constructive note you seem to have missed the point entirely. Wine does this already, it handles the userspace and kernel space of windows environments in general. It is a perfect solution behind just getting the source code from the developers themselves and porting it (god knows they wanna do that), for everything in general.
I would love to take the code necessary from wine and put it into the kernel. I do have a problem with my kernel monolith being 300+MBs though...
If this would have worked they would have done it. Windows and it's applications have many layers.
Alexander Scott
I know but I don't trust the user space coders of linux at all. The only project on linux that I can trust for something so critical (running windows stuff, which is 99% of desktop software) is the linux kernel project.
Aiden Miller
Fuck off brainlet, I addressed that but you are incapable to even read. They pretend it's not an emulator but it fits perfectly the definition of High-Level-Emulation because that definition is not technical at all, only "I imitate the original system's result" which is exactly what Wine does.
Those types of emulators tend to be extremely inaccurate - usually - which explains why Wine is an unworkable mess.
>300+MBs Retard spergs like you that don't want a couple of megabytes more on your 64GB RAM system is what kills linux. It makes projects like KDE being underdeveloped so a sperg can have 16KB footprint on their 64GB machine.
Jayden Moore
You want to have the least possible percentage of the system running in ring0.
Leo Martin
Kill yourself, you sorry excuse for a walking abortion. There’s nothing revolutionary in what MS did to run the Linux kernel on top of Windows, all they did was shoving it into the hardware virtualized sandbox.
Chase King
They can do it because the Linux kernel API is well documented and they have access to the Linux source code, and you still have loads of bugs and missing functionality. Windows NT doesn't have anything like that.
Henry Sullivan
What evidence do you have that they are running the kernel under the hood? That would be a violation of the GPL btw.
Jayden Martinez
No I am talking about taking a 3MB binary and filling it with tons of shit and holes imported directly from the NT kernel
Fuck that.
Hudson Jenkins
GPLv3 not v2
William Carter
1 question op, why would i ever need trashy windows applications on my linux machine?
Michael Carter
Because you aren't an insecure "look at me I dont play gaymes"-cuck who grew up?
Robert Thomas
Wait, so you're proposing a "Windows subsystem for Linux", that would implement/emulate the NT kernel itself inside of the Linux kernel?
It's an interesting idea, but you would actually need documentation and source for the NT kernel, to even have a hope of success, no? Even WSL is pretty shaky with those things. Plus, you would need to also run the entire Windows userspace, since any program might reasonably expect it to be there. Enjoy your candy crush, onedrive ads and automated updates starting whenever.
Sounds horrible honestly and the complexity cost on the kernel would be enormous if it was even possible at all. A VM achieves the same result with much less mess.
No it isn't. OS2 already tried this approach and failed laughably because everyone just stopped making software targeting it. It's amazing anyone would think for a moment this is an original idea without historical precedent.
You're almost ignorant enough to run IBM.
Jackson Hall
It would be a violation of the GPL2 if they don't include the text of the license, or if they refuse to send you the source code of the modified kernel. According to the FSF, even linking a proprietary program with a GPL program makes the whole thing GPL: epiclaw.net/2012/01/31/combining-or-linking-proprietary-software-unmodified-code-licensed-under-gplv2 Besides, Microsoft claims the WSL was made using clean room design, and there's no indication it wasn't.
does any of you fuckers remember Os/2 Warp?.. fuck i'm old well.. it ran dos and windows (3.1) apps just fine. Used it as my main OS for about a year until i realized it's kinda stupid to run basically ALL of your windows apps at 90% speed because of emulation. But damn,, that desktop was nice and windows would take until XP to catch up with stability and features.
*sigh*.
Nolan Myers
The solution is buy two computers with KVM switch
David Jackson
>communist >state Do you even know what communism is?
Angel Gutierrez
.... my point being.. there will always be a technological overhead so you WILL be slower. also, your just chasing MS's new features, so your releases will always be slower and have less features in time. So... emulate and conquer will NOT work... it has been tried..
It's not a simulation though, it's just a rewrite of the windows binary loader and all supplementary parts made to run on Linux.
Luis Reed
It doesn't emulate windows APIs, it implements them.
Joseph Perez
>No, not like Wine which is effectively a glorified interpreter No retard it's not. There is nothing to emulate because both windows and linux (well at least in your case) run on x86 machines. >the linux kernel able to run windows binaries natively It's literally what wine is. >Wine is such an unworkable mess everyone hates It's actually great, at this point it only fails at specific pieces of software that are intentionally checking the consistency of OS (like anticheats) or being intrusive (spyware shit like adobe apps, thogh they actually work with wine too now). And some games that try to cheat (thank you based nvidia) and use specific code paths linking to proprietary novideo libraries which do not exist in linux. It was hard enough to reimplement the directx, now they need to keep up with gimpworks too. >running them purely natively on the kernel with any dlls also running purely natively with very generic redirections of windows api calls. Yeah, like wine. If you want a reverse engineered windows, go contribute to reactOS. Maybe in 30 years it will become winXP compatible.
Jayden Cox
>make the linux kernel able to run windows binaries natively >Then the communist state will be realized Oh look, a fucking commie who doesn't understand economics or technology.
Let me explain it to you. There's no way to make Windows software run natively on Linux unless you have the source code and you heavily modify it. Making existing binaries is impossible without a translation layer like WINE that will translate syscalls and emulate certain resources so that a Windows binary can run. That's as closed as you'll ever get unless you write the OS from scratch. This is happening with ReactOS which uses a custom kernel and userland utilities, modeled after early Windows NT versions. It's compatible at the API level, which means most of the Windows syscalls are the same as the ones found in ReactOS. ReactOS is a Windows clone that can run Windows software, and no one wants it because it's worse than Windows XP.
Windows is a horrible combination of DOS and VMS. It represents more than a quarter of a century of bad ideas. Linux, BSD, macOS, and Unix are all POSIX compliant, which means you can easily compile software made for Solaris on AIX, and software made for AIX can be compiled on Linux, and software for Linux can be compiled on macOS. But not on Windows, because Windows is a special snowflake OS built by retards for retards. Any Windows version past 2000 with the exception of 7 is unusable trash.
The way we kill Windows is by leaving the platform. If you can't leave behind all the blue screens and malware because of muh bideo bames, then you're a weak bitch and you deserve to suffer. Non *nix systems are dead. All of them. OS/2 is dead. VMS is dead. AmigaOS is dead. Windows is a rotting corpse that you're still feasting on because you're too dumb to see the table covered with a thanksgiving dinner right behind you.
>implying Unix wasn't a bad idea from the very beginning >implying Windows isn't based more on Unix than in DOS >implying Symbolics wasn't the only hope of ever having a decent computing environment
>Just as QEMU implements the x86 ISA on top of ARM You don't know how any of this works, do you? QEMU can emulate lots of systems and architectures, and it can also use KVM and Hyper-V to run directly on the hardware. Why the fuck would you emulate an entire x86 CPU when you're already running it on an Intel/AMD machine. That's dumb, and so are you.
Also WINE is not an emulator. It's a translation layer.
I see you're bitching and crying about Unix. Show us on the doll where Dennis Ritchie hurt you.
