Re: [gtk-list] Windows NT port

[robert havoc pennington <rhpennin midway uchicago edu>]

On 2 May 1998 list@mail2.redhat.com wrote:
> 
> running on wincrap doesn't necessarily mean leaving X behind. at least one
> commercial application ("commercial" meaning it costs a few thousand bucks in
> the shop) found it easier to port X than rewrite the thing for Not There.
> 

Well yeah, you can run an X server on Windows, that's one of the things I
mentioned as a useful alternative to porting Gtk. They're wanting to port
Gtk, not X, so it isn't necessary to run the X server. This means
replacing Xlib with something that speaks Windows instead of the X
protocol. (maybe the xlib.dll you mention already does this; if so, a Gtk
port might be relatively easy.)

Havoc Pennington
http://pobox.com/~hp