Mike Hearn wrote:
Hmm, I don't see why. You realise we can't write to the native registry
yes? So using a native registry with the old code was equivalent to
doing an import each time you started Wine. For the case where you
install under Windows then run under Wine, you only need one import
anyway
Mike McCormack wrote:
You're very quick to accuse.
This is a techical list and we are technical people, so let's have a
technical discussion about the benefits to Wine of the change, rather
than a mud-slinging, name calling flame fest, OK?
I take every thing I said back. I meant in a technical f
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 16:31 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> The tool you propose is not it, as I said in my first post, "Dynamic" is
> the only solution for what I was talking about, i.e. the use of same
> registry.
Hmm, I don't see why. You realise we can't write to the native registry
yes? So usi
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Well! Above logic just eliminated Wine my friends. If Native dlls and
Registry is a set back on "Free" Wine development, than logic would
follow that, running native Windows applications (Wine) is a set
back/discouragement of Free SW development.
I'm almost sure my words wil
Mike Hearn wrote:
Oh for goodness sake, Alexandre already explained that the whole purpose
of this change was to start on moving the config file into the registry
so we can use winecfg. You know, winecfg, that program that CodeWeavers
don't need because we already have our own? That program which I
Mike Hearn wrote:
I think we'd do just as well to provide a little tool you can run on
Windows to watch a software installation and import the registry
entries/files into Wine.
I wrote such a tool once. Do you want me to ask my former employer if he
would mind releasing it?
Shachar
-
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 13:29 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> Well! Above logic just eliminated Wine my friends. If Native dlls and
> Registry is a set back on "Free" Wine development, than logic would
> follow that, running native Windows applications (Wine) is a set
> back/discouragement of Free SW
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
Well! Above logic just eliminated Wine my friends. If Native dlls and
Registry is a set back on "Free" Wine development, than logic would
follow that, running native Windows applications (Wine) is a set
back/discouragement of Free SW development.
I restrained myself from sayi
Steven Edwards wrote:
I have to agree. Short term being able to load the Windows registry and Windows
system dlls helped Wine but long term it has led to stagnation. Most of the
recent growth in Wine in past few years has been because we are being forced to
not be dependant on a existing Windows in
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 21:57 +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> And in order to do this we need to get rid of the current registry hacks,
> the first of which is the Windows registry loading code.
Ah OK, I didn't realise this was necessary for winecfg to be activated.
thanks -mike
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd have to disagree. I am not really convinced this sort of encouragement
> works:
>
> - We have no config file, yet this has apparently not accelerated the pace
> of winecfg development, we just have more confused users
Actually there has been quite a
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 06:51:04PM +, Mike Hearn wrote:
> - We have no config file, yet this has apparently not accelerated the pace
> of winecfg development, we just have more confused users
AFAIK, winecfg is not working with the real registry stuff, so how
would not having a config file ac
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 10:35:36 -0800, Steven Edwards wrote:
> I have to agree. Short term being able to load the Windows registry and
> Windows
> system dlls helped Wine but long term it has led to stagnation. Most of the
> recent growth in Wine in past few years has been because we are being forced
Hi,
--- Mike McCormack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People would moan and complain, but in the end Wine and Wine users would
> be better off, as they would no longer depend on anything but Wine to
> run their Windows software.
I have to agree. Short term being able to load the Windows registry
On 12 Mar 2005 17:04:38 +0100, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is anybody working on this, or will it just be a feature regression until
> > somebody changes the way we use native drives?
>
> Nobody's working on it, so it won't be suppo
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is anybody working on this, or will it just be a feature regression until
> somebody changes the way we use native drives?
Nobody's working on it, so it won't be supported until someone cares
enough to do it. I encouraged a few people to start working on i
Mike Hearn wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:20:42 +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
There should be an "import existing Windows drive" function in
winecfg, or something along those lines, that would create symlinks to
the Windows install and import the registry.
You mean by moving the native registry
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:20:42 +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> There should be an "import existing Windows drive" function in
> winecfg, or something along those lines, that would create symlinks to
> the Windows install and import the registry.
You mean by moving the native registry loading code
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> What is the thinking behind this patch? If we don't load the Windows
> registry on startup where should it be loaded? Will this code re-appear
> at any point in the future? A significant number of users still expect to
> be able to point
Hi Alexandre,
What is the thinking behind this patch? If we don't load the Windows
registry on startup where should it be loaded? Will this code re-appear
at any point in the future? A significant number of users still expect to
be able to point Wine at an actual Windows install despite what we
re
20 matches
Mail list logo
