<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Ben Klein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shacklein@gmail.com">shacklein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
2009/2/26 King InuYasha <<a href="mailto:ngompa13@gmail.com">ngompa13@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">> Now that Nautilus has the desktop file requiring execute bit, I have a<br>
> question for all of you to consider. Do JAR files require the +x bit to load<br>
> them, or are they treated like associated files and run through the<br>
> interpreter? Really, Windows apps on Linux is basically the same situation<br>
> as Java applications run through the bytecode interpreter.<br>
<br>
</div>You just answered your own question. Java is interpreted and has to be<br>
passed through a compatible byte-code interpreter. Wine does not<br>
interpret PE files in this fashion, and cannot because it is not and<br>
does not have a CPU emulator. So a JAR file should run if passed as an<br>
argument to the interpreter, just like what happens with the scripting<br>
languages that open the file for reading instead of trying to fork and<br>
execute.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
</blockquote></div><br><div>But, doesn't Wine translate Win32 calls into its equivalent calls for Linux? GDI to X11, D3D to OpenGL, etc.?</div><div>That sounds like an interpreter to me. It may not necessarily a bytecode interpreter, but it still interprets the Win32 API and translates it to the appropriate UNIX APIs. Isn't this what makes Wine not an emulator?</div>