Linux users CRYING cause they don't have STEAM! PATHETIC!!!!

Benjamin Gawert <bgawert.RemoveThis@gmx.de> writes:

> * Hadron:
>
>>> Why should they? Just look on the quality level of Windows games:
>>> usually dozens of unsolved bugs that *perhaps* get fixed (or not) with
>>> some patch later, sometimes going that far that a game is just
>>> unplayable out of the box (i.e Boilingpoint, Daikatana etc). Then
>>
>> You picked about the only two games I recall having such terrible
>> issues. Not very representative. Most games do indeed work out of the
>> box to be fair.
>
> Yes, they work, and you're right that these both games are probably
> extreme examples. However, most games do have issues. For example,
> STALKER came out with lots of problems (frequent crashes, corrupt save
> games, broken quest system etc) and still after some patching suffers
> from very annoying bugs like enemies with X-ray eyes (they always see
> you no matter where you hide) or the bug where all enemies in the
> current map are alerted when you reload a savegame. Call of Cthulhu (a
> great game btw) just can't be played with certain gfx cards because in
> certain situation the game shows something different than it's
> supposed to be. This won't get fixed since the developer went bust. Or
> Oblivion, a game that came out with broken quest system and dozens of
> other glitches. Or just talk about Gothic3. And so on and so on.
>
> Sure, most of them are playable somehow (I also managed to finish the
> buggy STALKER), but it shows clearly how much priority bug solving has
> to the game developers. It's not that they wouldn't be aware of the
> problems, however they usually decide to rush out an unfinished game
> instead of delaying it for some time and get the most obvious problems
> sorted out.

I agree with most of what you say. But I would add this : SW always has
bugs. And if you consider the money and effort Windows game developers
go to with a relatively stable and well supported gaming infrastructure
and there are still bugs because of the broad spectrum of HW mixes in
the real world, just imagine how difficult it is with Linux where
nothing is "standard" and depends on the distro and the preferences of
each and ever user. A thankless task.

>
>>> And you really think that this would be better on Linux? I doubt that.
>>>
>>
>> Not a hope. The last 2 "open source" games I downloaded wouldn't even
>> compile because I didn't have the right "mesa" installed. The reason was
>> that mesa was incompatible on my system with the version of freeglut I
>> was using. The entire thing is a complete and utter mess.
>
> Exactly. And then talk about DLL hell

It really is hell.

>
> Benjamin

--

On 2007-08-03, Hadron <hadronquark.RemoveThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I agree with most of what you say. But I would add this : SW always has
> bugs.

Not true. A lot of software has to work flawlessly or else human lives
would be at stake. Ie. pacemakers.

It's something completely different in personal computing software
because people who write that kind of software are incapable of writing
good software, they use fishy tools to do it just because they don't
know enough to use the right tool for the right job etc. etc.

And if you consider the money and effort Windows game developers

> go to with a relatively stable and well supported gaming infrastructure
> and there are still bugs because of the broad spectrum of HW mixes in
> the real world, just imagine how difficult it is with Linux where
> nothing is "standard" and depends on the distro and the preferences of
> each and ever user. A thankless task.

User software _should_ _not_ even be aware on what hardware it runs on.
That's why people developed OSes and APIs to create familiar layer for
regular programmers (API) and software (ABI) to rely on.

There are exactly two reasons why regular sw crashes depending on
different hw:

- it runs on top of faulty abstraction layer
- the programmer found a way to circumvent abstraction layer and
did something he shouldn't have.

And, btw, saying that nothing is "standard" is stupid (putting it
mildly). There's a standard int 80h interface, there's standard (g)libc,
X Window System protocol, Xlib etc, etc.

And there are always an options of static compile and carrying all the
libs you need if you think the destination system doesn't have them
(AFAIK, Oracle does this).

Actually, pretty much almost everything is standard. What's not?
Internal kernel API/ABI. But we'll leave that to hw manufacturers and
driver writers to handle. Of course, it doesn't matter whose driver
you've got, the interface to it is the same.

--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

* Hadron:

> I agree with most of what you say. But I would add this : SW always has
> bugs. And if you consider the money and effort Windows game developers
> go to with a relatively stable and well supported gaming infrastructure
> and there are still bugs because of the broad spectrum of HW mixes in
> the real world, just imagine how difficult it is with Linux where
> nothing is "standard" and depends on the distro and the preferences of
> each and ever user. A thankless task.

Definitely.

Benjamin

In article <pgrsi.15117$7c.9797@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
chrisehunter.RemoveThis@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk says...
> The thick mick wrote:
>
> > Then it is established: you are a liar.
>
> OK. If that's what you want to believe, carry on. I'm sure it makes you
> happy. Stay slack-jawed and ignorant, and get back to the bog where you
> belong.

That's what every sane person reading the thread believes. You came
out with several egregiously obvious lies, and ignored all challenges
to justify them.

'Infantile' is the only word to describe you.

- Gerry Quinn

On 2007-08-03, Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA RemoveThis @ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote:
> On 2007-08-03, Hadron <hadronquark RemoveThis @googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with most of what you say. But I would add this : SW always has
>> bugs.
>
> Not true. A lot of software has to work flawlessly or else human lives
> would be at stake. Ie. pacemakers.

And yet a 10 second Google for "pacemaker software recall" shows that even
that software is not always perfect.

"ST. JUDE EPIC DR, EPIC PLUS DR, ATLAS DR, ATLAS PLUS DR DEVICE ADVISORY

Models Effected:

DEVICE DESCRIPTION MODEL NUMBER
EPIC DR/HF V-233, V-337, V-338
EPIC PLUS DR/VR/HF V-236, V-239, V196, V-239T, V196T, V-350
ATLAS DR V-242
ATLAS PLUS DR/VR/HF V-243, V193, V193C, V-340, V-341, V-343

PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED:

-Problem can occur when one of the devices tries to deliver multiple shocks in rapid succession. Due to a software problem, it is possible that the device might miss a charging cycle if the battery is nearing its elective replacement indicator.
-Noise generated during battery charging can be detected by the device's accelerometer causing a temporary increase in the pacing rate that may persist after the charge is completed. This problem was traced to a faulty component supplied to St. Jude and occurs ONLY in devices with serial numbers less than or equal to 141000. Serial numbers GREATER THAN 141000 ARE NOT EFFECTED.

Recommendations:

Patients with these devices should have their devices checked. At the end of device evaluation, a software fix for both of these problems is "injected" into your device and will take approximately 45 seconds to correct. Devices do NOT need to be replaced."

* Davorin Vlahovic:

> Not true. A lot of software has to work flawlessly or else human lives
> would be at stake. Ie. pacemakers.

Right. But that doesn't mean this software has no bugs. HA/MC software
*does* have bugs, too. The difference to standard software is that with
HA/MC software testing is done that no bugs show up on all situations
that are likely to occur.

Benjamin

Ivan Marsh <annoyed.DeleteThis@you.now> writes:

> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:53:55 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Zaghadka <zaghadka.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:16:32 +0000 (UTC), in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,
>>> Davorin Vlahovic wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2007-08-01, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter.DeleteThis@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What windows users favourite games are you talking about?
>>>>>> Considering that most wont run on Linux?
>>>>>
>>>>> They do under Cedega, Wine or one of the other emulator applications.
>>>>> In many cases they run /better/ under an emulator than under
>>>>> Windows.
>>>>
>>>>Wine is not an emulator.
>>>
>>> In fact, in the tradition of GNU, that's what it stands for:
>>>
>>> (W)ine (I)s (N)ot an (E)mulator.
>>
>> Wrong. That was a suggestion not taken up by the developers. Google it
>> up. WINE was and IS an emulator but the emulator was taken from the name
>> because, as in this thread, people with no ability to think outside of
>> the box and thought they were technical geniuses because they knew what
>> a CPU emulator was got confused. See posts in thread for links to facts
>> and not baseless opinions.
>
> I don't know if you're a liar or just stupid, but stop making stuff up:
>
> http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/wine-faq/index

Did you even read the links provided?

No?

Then do so.

[snips]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:00:01 -0500, DFS wrote:

> But I use them maybe 0.1% of my computing time, if that. So you're right -
> 3% is very likely a gross overestimation.

As I said, you wouldn't be one to dishonestly misrepresent the numbers,
such as by implying that *you* usage represents *everyone's* usage, right?
After all, the simplest counter to that would be to point out I use Linux
virtually 100% of the time, therefore by your argument, that 3% is a vast
underestimation, it should be more like 80-90%.

This is why I asked if you had real numbers to back up your claims;
apparently you don't.


> And it's easy to prove to
> yourself that Linux is hardly run on anyone's desktop: just survey the
> next 100 people you see on the street. That's as good a random sample
> as any.

I don't live or work in China; hard for me to survey people in the streets
there. Perhaps locally, you see most people using Windows, but again,
that's meaningless. As a comparative chuckle, while the USAians have a
tendency to forget about the rest of the world, they only actually account
for about 6% of the total population - and your locality will account for
considerably less than that.

Thus such a survey will have virtually no meaning even in a given country,
let alone be reflective of the global state of affairs - so again, it
would appear you have no actual numbers.


> Then there's other overwhelming evidence:

"Other" would imply you had _some_ in the first place; so far you don't.

> "I love to tell the story about a speech I gave in Kuala Lumpur. I asked
> a large audience of techies, "How many of you use Linux?" Something like
> two out of 500 of them raised their hands. This is abnormally low
> anywhere in the world.

One wonders exactly _what_ sort of audience it was. "Techies" doesn't say
anything. If it's an MS-run developer's conference, for example, chances
are it's going to be populated by Windows folks. Without details, the
observation is meaningless. However...

> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/time-break-up-microsoft-has/stor...spx?gui


Hmm. A quote from the page:

"I'd argue that if Apple Inc., with its appealing desktop platform and
amazing marketing machine cannot unseat Microsoft, then how can the
slow-moving open source manage to do it?"

"Slow-moving"? Apparently this person is completely unaware of the world
of open source, which on the whole moves *faster* than most closed-source
alternatives.

As a simple example, compare Windows to Linux. In the time between XP and
Vista, Linux has added a whole host of new features and with products such
as KDE 4 on the horizon, it is poised to produce even more - while
Windows, despite the insanely long delivery time for Vista, has released a
product which has even many Windows fans screaming in frustration.


> ==================================================================================
> http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=0&action=c2hvd19...9kdWN0X
> nearly all the purchasers wiped Linux and installed XP or Vista

Interesting to note the comments offered there. Let's see... 10 per page.
First page, two users with Linux. Second page, two with Linux, one with
n/a, one with "other". Third page, three with n/a, one with "other".
Fourth page, two comments, one with Linux.

So... 32 comments in all; of those, five are Linux, four are "n/a", two
are "other". That means 11 out of 32 use something other than Windows,
and about 16% use Linux - giving lie to your 3% figure, never mind your
"that's overstated".

So, your own references prove you're simply wrong in your own numbers
where there *are* numbers, and the best you can do apart from that is to
quote someone of questionable reliability, counting noses in an unknown
environment.

Yes, well, you really do make your case.

<snicker>

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:35:21 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:

> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 17:57:47 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> XP = a mess
>>> Vista = a derivate of a mess
>>> XP and Vista = 90% of the desktop market
>>> Linux = about 3% of desktop market
>>
>> I'm sure you can back up those figures, with something *other* than sales
>> and revenue or web stats, right? After all, you wouldn't be so dishonest
>> as to examine sales and revenue when examining a product freely
>> downloadable and freely copyable, would you?
>>
>> No, you're a good, honest, upstanding fellow; therefore you must have real
>> numbers, real validation of those claims above. I'd be fascinated to see
>> them.
>
> It's just blustering nonsense. There are parts of the world where Windows
> has 0% of the "desktop market". For example, on a recent trip to China,
> the /only/ Windows machines I saw were at an airport check-in desk - and
> they'd /all/ crashed!

I like the way he posts a link which shows a good 16% Linux adoption
rate... while he's trying to tell us 3% is "high". The man's not smart
enough to read his own material and get it right.

Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA.DeleteThis@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote in
news:slrnfb6cbi.66o.nrubA@afrodita.home.lan:

>
> User software _should_ _not_ even be aware on what hardware it runs on.
> That's why people developed OSes and APIs to create familiar layer for
> regular programmers (API) and software (ABI) to rely on.
>
> There are exactly two reasons why regular sw crashes depending on
> different hw:
>
> - it runs on top of faulty abstraction layer
> - the programmer found a way to circumvent abstraction layer and
> did something he shouldn't have.
I would disagree that those are the only reasons. From my practice, the
following are much more common:
(a) software uses uninitialised memory;
(b) software uses unallocated memory;
(c) software uses unallocated *and* uninitialised memory.
Those are really good methods to make the program have strange and
unexplicable behaviour on different configurations.

(b) can probably be considered as a particular case of your second reason
though.

Ivan Marsh <annoyed.DeleteThis@you.now> writes:

> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:42:46 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group.DeleteThis@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2007.08.01.20.23.13.919771.DeleteThis@you.now>,
>>> Ivan Marsh <annoyed.DeleteThis@you.now> wrote:
>>>> > And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to it
>>>> > as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
>>>>
>>>> Let me do that for you... From the Wine About page:
>>>>
>>>> "Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running
>>>> Windows applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating
>>>> systems. Windows programs running in Wine act as native programs
>>>> would, running without the performance or memory usage penalties of an
>>>> emulator, with a similar look and feel to other applications on your
>>>> desktop."
>>>>
>>>> From the Wine FAQ:
>>>>
>>>> "Why do some people write WINE and not Wine?
>>>>
>>>> They are using the acronym "Wine Is Not an Emulator", the original
>>>> name for the project. While recursive acronyms are clever, there
>>>> really is no point to the capital letters. They look ugly, so please
>>>> use the simpler, current name of the project: Wine. It's what we use."
>>>
>>> It's surprising the current FAQ would say that was the original name of
>>> the project. The recursive acronym was first suggested in 1993, on
>>> comp.os.linux.misc:
>
> Considering the Wine project started in 1993 I'm not sure what you're
> trying to say here.
>
>>> The word Wine stands for one of two things: WINdows Emulator, or
>>> Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are right. Use whichever one you like
>>> best.
>
> That would seem to prove and disprove both statements being made in this
> thread.

Hang on. No it doesn't. It is an emulator. The fact the name or the
commonly used name changed doesn't change anything.

>
>> Thanks Tim. I really am at a loss to understand why Linux zealots wish
>> to change history. It's blatantly clear what WINE is yet the COLA gang
>> seem to get some browny points for disputing history. The adage that a
>> little knowledge is a dangerous thing was never so accurate as here.
>
> Indeed thanks Tim... you proved that neither of us are correct and we're
> both correct.

No. It proves that the it is an Emulator.

>
> Hadron, the whole "Linux zealot" bullshit makes you sound like a troll...
> especially since you have no idea what my experience is.

>
> Also, if you're going to whine about people trying to change history
> it

I am not whining about anyone changing history. I pointed out that the
developers dropped the emulator part of the name because it confused
people who ONLY understood HW emulators.

> would appear that the Wine developers or FAQ maintainers are the ones you
> should be focusing on.

Huh? What *are* you talking about? This stared because someone stated
that WINE is most definitely NOT an emulator. Enough links and proof
have now been posted to put that claim to the sword.

>
> Let's start the does "Xwindows exist" argument now.
>

Huh? Are you picking a fight with yourself?

Ivan Marsh <annoyed DeleteThis @you.now> writes:

> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:15:13 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>
>> Ivan Marsh <annoyed DeleteThis @you.now> writes:
>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:42:46 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group DeleteThis @mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>>>> In article <pan.2007.08.01.20.23.13.919771 DeleteThis @you.now>,
>>>>> Ivan Marsh <annoyed DeleteThis @you.now> wrote:
>>>>>> > And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to it
>>>>>> > as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me do that for you... From the Wine About page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running
>>>>>> Windows applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating
>>>>>> systems. Windows programs running in Wine act as native programs
>>>>>> would, running without the performance or memory usage penalties of an
>>>>>> emulator, with a similar look and feel to other applications on your
>>>>>> desktop."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the Wine FAQ:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Why do some people write WINE and not Wine?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are using the acronym "Wine Is Not an Emulator", the original
>>>>>> name for the project. While recursive acronyms are clever, there
>>>>>> really is no point to the capital letters. They look ugly, so please
>>>>>> use the simpler, current name of the project: Wine. It's what we use."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's surprising the current FAQ would say that was the original name of
>>>>> the project. The recursive acronym was first suggested in 1993, on
>>>>> comp.os.linux.misc:
>>>
>>> Considering the Wine project started in 1993 I'm not sure what you're
>>> trying to say here.
>>>
>>>>> The word Wine stands for one of two things: WINdows Emulator, or
>>>>> Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are right. Use whichever one you like
>>>>> best.
>>>
>>> That would seem to prove and disprove both statements being made in this
>>> thread.
>>
>> Hang on. No it doesn't. It is an emulator. The fact the name or the
>> commonly used name changed doesn't change anything.
>
> May I quote you:
>
> "And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
> myth."
>
> It clearly isn't a myth.

I meant that it was never the official name.

>
>>>> Thanks Tim. I really am at a loss to understand why Linux zealots wish
>>>> to change history. It's blatantly clear what WINE is yet the COLA gang
>>>> seem to get some browny points for disputing history. The adage that a
>>>> little knowledge is a dangerous thing was never so accurate as here.
>>>
>>> Indeed thanks Tim... you proved that neither of us are correct and we're
>>> both correct.
>>
>> No. It proves that the it is an Emulator.
>
> No... it simply does not.
>
> Whether Wine is a true emulator is debated even within the Wine
> development community.

What is this "true emulator" to which you refer?

Wine was originally "Windows Emulator". Open your mind a little.

>
> I would argue that since Wine isn't software pretending to be hardware it
> isn't an emulator. Obviously you, and others, would disagree with
> that.

Yes. including the project originators. Why do think it has to be HW to
be emulator?

>
>>> Hadron, the whole "Linux zealot" bullshit makes you sound like a troll...
>>> especially since you have no idea what my experience is.
>>>
>>> Also, if you're going to whine about people trying to change history
>>> it
>>
>> I am not whining about anyone changing history. I pointed out that the
>> developers dropped the emulator part of the name because it confused
>> people who ONLY understood HW emulators.
>
> I'll quote you again:
>
> "I really am at a loss to understand why Linux zealots wish to change
> history. It's blatantly clear what WINE is yet the COLA gang seem to get
> some browny points for disputing history. The adage that a little
> knowledge is a dangerous thing was never so accurate as here."
>
> Are you disputing whether that's whining or not? By my definition, that's
> whining. ...and for the record: Fuck COLA. Most of the people in COLA
> are

That is not whining. it is stating disbelief.

> Windows users whose sole purpose is to start stupid arguments like this.
>
>>> would appear that the Wine developers or FAQ maintainers are the ones
>>> you should be focusing on.
>>
>> Huh? What *are* you talking about? This stared because someone stated
>> that WINE is most definitely NOT an emulator. Enough links and proof
>> have now been posted to put that claim to the sword.
>
> In my opinion Wine is not an emulator. Clearly in the minds of the Wine
> community many of them would agree.

The wrong ones. Sorry. WINdows Emulator.

>
>>> Let's start the does "Xwindows exist" argument now.
>>>
>> Huh? Are you picking a fight with yourself?
>
> Just pointing out yet another meaningless argument.
>

Look. Stop. Go back.

Someone, not me started this. They stated that WINE is NOT an
emulator. It has been proven over and over that if you are capable of
thinking about what emulation is that WINE was and is an emulator. It
was even named WINDOWS EMULATOR until confusions arose because of people
like unable to understand that you can emulate APIs in SW as well as HW
varieties.

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:15:13 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Ivan Marsh <annoyed RemoveThis @you.now> writes:
>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:42:46 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group RemoveThis @mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>>> In article <pan.2007.08.01.20.23.13.919771 RemoveThis @you.now>,
>>>> Ivan Marsh <annoyed RemoveThis @you.now> wrote:
>>>>> > And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring to it
>>>>> > as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me do that for you... From the Wine About page:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running
>>>>> Windows applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating
>>>>> systems. Windows programs running in Wine act as native programs
>>>>> would, running without the performance or memory usage penalties of an
>>>>> emulator, with a similar look and feel to other applications on your
>>>>> desktop."
>>>>>
>>>>> From the Wine FAQ:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Why do some people write WINE and not Wine?
>>>>>
>>>>> They are using the acronym "Wine Is Not an Emulator", the original
>>>>> name for the project. While recursive acronyms are clever, there
>>>>> really is no point to the capital letters. They look ugly, so please
>>>>> use the simpler, current name of the project: Wine. It's what we use."
>>>>
>>>> It's surprising the current FAQ would say that was the original name of
>>>> the project. The recursive acronym was first suggested in 1993, on
>>>> comp.os.linux.misc:
>>
>> Considering the Wine project started in 1993 I'm not sure what you're
>> trying to say here.
>>
>>>> The word Wine stands for one of two things: WINdows Emulator, or
>>>> Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are right. Use whichever one you like
>>>> best.
>>
>> That would seem to prove and disprove both statements being made in this
>> thread.
>
> Hang on. No it doesn't. It is an emulator. The fact the name or the
> commonly used name changed doesn't change anything.

May I quote you:

"And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
myth."

It clearly isn't a myth.

>>> Thanks Tim. I really am at a loss to understand why Linux zealots wish
>>> to change history. It's blatantly clear what WINE is yet the COLA gang
>>> seem to get some browny points for disputing history. The adage that a
>>> little knowledge is a dangerous thing was never so accurate as here.
>>
>> Indeed thanks Tim... you proved that neither of us are correct and we're
>> both correct.
>
> No. It proves that the it is an Emulator.

No... it simply does not.

Whether Wine is a true emulator is debated even within the Wine
development community.

I would argue that since Wine isn't software pretending to be hardware it
isn't an emulator. Obviously you, and others, would disagree with that.

>> Hadron, the whole "Linux zealot" bullshit makes you sound like a troll...
>> especially since you have no idea what my experience is.
>>
>> Also, if you're going to whine about people trying to change history
>> it
>
> I am not whining about anyone changing history. I pointed out that the
> developers dropped the emulator part of the name because it confused
> people who ONLY understood HW emulators.

I'll quote you again:

"I really am at a loss to understand why Linux zealots wish to change
history. It's blatantly clear what WINE is yet the COLA gang seem to get
some browny points for disputing history. The adage that a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing was never so accurate as here."

Are you disputing whether that's whining or not? By my definition, that's
whining. ...and for the record: Fuck COLA. Most of the people in COLA are
Windows users whose sole purpose is to start stupid arguments like this.

>> would appear that the Wine developers or FAQ maintainers are the ones
>> you should be focusing on.
>
> Huh? What *are* you talking about? This stared because someone stated
> that WINE is most definitely NOT an emulator. Enough links and proof
> have now been posted to put that claim to the sword.

In my opinion Wine is not an emulator. Clearly in the minds of the Wine
community many of them would agree.

>> Let's start the does "Xwindows exist" argument now.
>>
> Huh? Are you picking a fight with yourself?

Just pointing out yet another meaningless argument.