Need ideas about ntoskrnl

[Kuba Ober]

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 10:27, you wrote:
> Kuba Ober wrote:
> >On Tuesday 06 September 2005 07:38, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> >>Peter Beutner <p.beutner at gmx.net> writes:
> >>>Any reasons given?
> >>
> >>Stability is the obvious reason.
> >
> >Stability? It'd still be at most as unstable as a native windows session,
> > so I don't see a big deal with that. If wineserver and/or user process
> > crashes, so what? That'd very likely happen on the native platform as
> > well, so I fail to see anything wrong with that approach from the
> > stability perspective...
>
> Except that Windows doesn't have missing functions or functions that
> aren't quite completely implemented. 

I was looking at it entirely from the overall stability standpoint, assuming 
that wine will otherwise move forward. If we assume that wine will forever be 
stuck where it's now then of course this wouldn't make big sense. But then 
it's a strategic decision that will affect the long run, mostly, as right now 
there'd be like one or two drivers supported anyway (copy protection I'd 
assume)...

Kuba