2 ms·

In many cases it is indeed not so simple: * Most nontrivial Windows program would get very confused if exposed to a trivially mapped Unix filesystem. It's not

by samus 6y ago

In many cases it is indeed not so simple: * Most nontrivial Windows program would get very confused if exposed to a trivially mapped Unix filesystem. It's not so bad if every program would use environment variables to locate stuff, but you can't discount the possibility that some of them hardcode paths. Also, application data in Windows is usually kept in a common folder, while in Unix filesystems it is usually split across `/usr/bin`, `/usr/share`, `/usr/lib` and so on. * Many Windows applications store their configuration in the registry. That part is not too bad though; it should be completely doable in userspace. * The application might issue system calls that have different semantics, or that don't even exist on Linux. TA is significant because it paves the way to an efficient implementation of one of these system calls.

encryptluks2 6y ago
> Most nontrivial Windows program would get very confused if exposed to a trivially mapped Unix filesystem. It's not so bad if every program would use environment variables to locate stuff, but you can't discount the possibility that some of them hardcode paths. Also, application data in Windows is usually kept in a common folder, while in Unix filesystems it is usually split across `/usr/bin`, `/usr/share`, `/usr/lib` and so on. The application data in windows would not be the same as `/usr/` paths. It would be the equivalent of `~/.config` and `~/.local`. The last thing anyone in Linux would want is for Windows to start populating their system folders, let alone probably creating hundreds of top-level folders in their `~/.config` or `~/.local` directory. > Many Windows applications store their configuration in the registry. That part is not too bad though; it should be completely doable in userspace. The Windows registry is an atrocious monster that should have died already. You can rarely ever truly delete an app in Windows, as there will be sometimes hundreds of registry keys leftover. > TA is significant because it paves the way to an efficient implementation of one of these system calls. If there is mutual benefit outside of Windows, then sure why not. If it is built just for better Wine compatibility with Windows then I hope to see a rant by Linus telling them how ridiculous they are.
- samus 6y ago
  Sorry, my bad here. Of course, only the binaries and static assets are stored in C:\Program Files. Your point is the perfect argument though for why Wine emulates a Windows file system hierarchy. I don't like the registry either. My `not too bad` refers to the effort required to support it. Wine should make it possible though give each application its own copy of the registry. This copy could be nuked along with the application when it is uninstalled. Linus doesn't like a lot of things. ZFS for example. It certainly sucks to maintain out-of-kernel patches, but if there is enough benefit, someone will do it. And it would be actually pretty sweet and ironic if Windows applications run faster on the Linux desktop than on Windows. Also, I am optimistic that futex2 will find many applications outside of Wine.

by samus 6y ago

encryptluks2 6y ago

> Most nontrivial Windows program would get very confused if exposed to a trivially mapped Unix filesystem. It's not so bad if every program would use environment variables to locate stuff, but you can't discount the possibility that some of them hardcode paths. Also, application data in Windows is usually kept in a common folder, while in Unix filesystems it is usually split across `/usr/bin`, `/usr/share`, `/usr/lib` and so on. The application data in windows would not be the same as `/usr/` paths. It would be the equivalent of `~/.config` and `~/.local`. The last thing anyone in Linux would want is for Windows to start populating their system folders, let alone probably creating hundreds of top-level folders in their `~/.config` or `~/.local` directory. > Many Windows applications store their configuration in the registry. That part is not too bad though; it should be completely doable in userspace. The Windows registry is an atrocious monster that should have died already. You can rarely ever truly delete an app in Windows, as there will be sometimes hundreds of registry keys leftover. > TA is significant because it paves the way to an efficient implementation of one of these system calls. If there is mutual benefit outside of Windows, then sure why not. If it is built just for better Wine compatibility with Windows then I hope to see a rant by Linus telling them how ridiculous they are.

samus 6y ago
Sorry, my bad here. Of course, only the binaries and static assets are stored in C:\Program Files. Your point is the perfect argument though for why Wine emulates a Windows file system hierarchy. I don't like the registry either. My `not too bad` refers to the effort required to support it. Wine should make it possible though give each application its own copy of the registry. This copy could be nuked along with the application when it is uninstalled. Linus doesn't like a lot of things. ZFS for example. It certainly sucks to maintain out-of-kernel patches, but if there is enough benefit, someone will do it. And it would be actually pretty sweet and ironic if Windows applications run faster on the Linux desktop than on Windows. Also, I am optimistic that futex2 will find many applications outside of Wine.