Linked by David Adams on Fri 18th Jun 2010 19:17 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 430731
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by ndrw on Sun 20th Jun 2010 05:57
in reply to "RE[7]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
Fair enough. I agree that in isolation (without Linux) WINE is not an emulator.
I don't think this is a valid context, though. Software always relies on some sort of primitives (be it interpreter, libraries, OS calls or CPU instructions). This way every program should be called "a layer".
Back to GNU&WINE. Don't you find it interesting that, when expanded, they actually include words "Unix" and "Emulator"? This is a clear invitation to consider whether or not they have anything to do with Unix or a Windows emulator. Just think of all these discussions that have happened already. That's how far you can go without violating someone's trademarks and still have your message passed through.




Member since:
2009-05-19
Like f.ex. Mono isn't emulating .NET neither does WINE emulate WIN32, they're just new implementations of the same old thing.
Very interesting point. I would say that Mono isn't emulating .NET the specification but it is emulating .NET the implementation. In the end it's pretty fluid, depending which of these really defines the platform.
WINE is an API/ABI abstraction layer. Why can't it be called an emulator? Because Windows is an OS and WINE is nowhere near that. Though WINE with Linux, as a tandem, could be called a Windows Emulator.
Yet, Mono does try to emulate MS.NET in all and every aspect, top to bottom.