Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux • Hacker News Board

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#31

Post by tosti » Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

This is only ever relevant for proprietary software. Free software does not require a stable ABI. Great that wine exists but it should be useless.

(That and Linux doesn't implement win32 and wine doesn't exclusively run on Linux.)

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#32

Post by QuadmasterXLII » Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

znpy wrote: post #12

> What is this? A dream of a Linux distribution where the entire desktop environment is Win32 software running under WINE. I might unironically use this. The Windows 2000 era desktop was light and practical. I wonder how well it performs with modern high-resolution, high-dpi displays.

I’m in if this is happening

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#33

Post by mikkupikku » Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

Crazy how, thanks to Wine/Proton, Linux is now more compatible with old Windows games than Windows itself. There are a lot of games from the 90s and even the 00s that require jumping through a lot of hoops to run on Windows, but through Steam they're click-to-play on Linux.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#34

Post by Etheryte » Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #28

NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lua

Performance?

If there was sufficient interest in it, most performance issues could be solved. Look at Python or Javascript, big companies have financial interest in it so they've poured an insane amount of capital into making them faster.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#35

Post by the__alchemist » Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

Yea! I love the spirit. Compatibility in computing is consternating. If my code is compiled for CPU Arch X, the OS should just provide it with (using Rust terminology) standard library tools (networking, file system, and allocator etc) , de-conflict it with other programs, and get out of the way. The barriers between OSes, including between various linux dependencies feels like a problem we (idealistically thinking) shouldn't have.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#36

Post by kaoD » Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 2:38 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #17

ezoe wrote: post #6

But would you want to run these Win32 software on Linux for daily use? I don't.

Gamers have no other option, and thanks Valve, game studios have no reasons left to bother with native Linux clients. Just target Windows, business as usual, and let Valve do the hard work.

Well, not having Proton definitely didn't work to grow gaming on Linux.

Maybe Valve can play the reverse switcheroo out of Microsoft's playbook and, once enough people are on Linux, force the developers' hand by not supporting Proton anymore.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#37

Post by keyringlight » Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 2:38 PM UTC

ezoe wrote: post #6

But would you want to run these Win32 software on Linux for daily use? I don't.

Depends on what task you're doing, and to a certain extent how you prefer to do it. For example sure there's plenty of ways to tag/rename media files, but I've yet to find something that matches the power of Mp3tag in a GUI under linux.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#38

Post by aggling » Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 2:38 PM UTC

raddan wrote: post #25

aggling wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is irrelevant to the feasibility of reimplementing the Win32 API on Linux.

WINE has been reimplementing the Win32 ABI (not API) for decades. It already works pretty well; development has been driven by both volunteers and commercial developers (CodeWeavers) for a long time.

There are many programs that still do not work properly in WINE, even though it has been developed for decades. This in itself demonstrates the infeasibility of reimplementing Win32 as a stable interface on par with Windows. The result after all this effort is still patchy and incomplete.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#39

Post by mikkupikku » Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 2:38 PM UTC

cromka wrote: post #30

pjmlp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gamers have no other option, and thanks Valve, game studios have no reasons left to bother with native Linux clients. Just target Windows, business as usual, and let Valve do the hard work.

> Gamers have no other option, and thanks Valve, game studios have no reasons left to bother with native Linux clients But they do test their Windows games on Linux now and fix issues as needed. I read that CDProjekt does that, at least.

CDProjekt releases native linux builds.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#40

Post by Nextgrid » Tue, Dec 30, 2025, 2:41 PM UTC

tosti wrote: post #31

This is only ever relevant for proprietary software. Free software does not require a stable ABI. Great that wine exists but it should be useless. (That and Linux doesn't implement win32 and wine doesn't exclusively run on Linux.)

Free software can still benefit from a stable ABI. If I want to run the software, it's better to download it in a format my CPU can understand, rather than download source, figure out the dependencies, wait for compiling (let's say it's a large project like Firefox or Chromium that takes hours to compile), and so on.