Yes, I've written applications in Win32 (especially for work). I tend to prefer to use a cross-platform library like SDL though.

nano-x (aka microwindows) has a subset of the Win32 API functions and, with the nxlib library, there's a subset of the X11 functions. That's to make porting from Windows or X11 systems easier. There's no WINE or winelib involved or needed. I also think it's more lightweight than using winelib if you're porting Win32 applications. I have run a few Win32 programs this way. For instance, there's a public domain pyramid card game I like that was written for Win32. It builds and works using the Win32 API from nano-x. There's enough X11 support to be able to compile the FLTK library and build applications that use it with nano-x and nxlib. One of the developers was able to get wxWidgets with the X11 backend working as well. However, that version of wxWidgets doesn't have complete functionality as compared to other builds of wxWidgets (such as the one using GTK as a backend). gtk 1.2 has also worked with nxlib. Am wondering if we should start another thread on nano-x instead of using this one.

To bring this closer to the original topic, nano-x makes a good base for a lightweight operating system if you don't want to run X Windows but console/terminal applications aren't enough. I also looked at DirectFB which can function similarly. nano-x makes it easy to use X11 (or Win32) based applications without too much porting needed, but DirectFB doesn't have similar compatibility. Also, I don't think DirectFB is actively developed anymore. So far, the only Linux distribution I've seen that uses nano-x primarily is NanoLinux. However, some other distributions do offer it as a package. The Debian based INX distribution (which is no longer actively developed) also seemed like an interesting option for a lightweight distro. It's completely console based which probably gave better performance on older systems than DSL's X applications. Another interesting and lightweight distribution is Rogue Class Linux. It also does not need X Windows. It uses console and framebuffer based applications (mostly games though). I've also seen some lightweight distributions that use X Windows but a lighter version of it ( such as https://github.com/idunham/tinyxlib ). I think many of these options would make a good alternative to standard X Windows if one is targeting older computers like DSL did. Also, I've had a few older computers with video hardware that I was never able to get X working properly on. So, a console or framebuffer based distribution might make a nice alternative for some older computers. Wonder how hard it would be to remaster a console/framebuffer based distribution? It should theoretically be easier than a distribution with X Windows. However, last time I tried the remastering tools with AntiX, the X Windows version worked fine, but I couldn't get a remastered console version to install. They do have a console version of AntiX to use as a starting point though.

I created my own 'small' or 'embedded' type linux: https://github.com/boardstretcher/barebones-linux

Seeing how it is done might help you along. Also looking at other small distros will help,.

https://www.minimalinux.org/ttylinux/
http://www.toms.net/rb/

And of course going through a base install of LFS can help you understand what it takes to make a distro: http://linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/

Remember,. there are already a billion linuxii out there. Perhaps making your own is fun and what you need to do -- then again,. spending that time donating your work to another distro might be even better.

My personal favorite home linux over the last few years: https://www.archlinux.org/

Nice that you've been able to create your own.

I've definitely been reading through the LFS site and I've tried out several parts of the BLFS book when building libraries and applications.

I've been thinking more about putting together a respin of an existing distribution, not recreating an entire distribution from scratch. I'd prefer to donate my time to a particular distribution that already exists, but always seem to have trouble finding one that matches my goals. Did some package creation for VectorLinux for a little while, but did not enjoy it. Since I've been working with distributions like Slackware and going through the BLFS book, I have my own package management system (using tarballs similar to but not exactly the same as Slackware). Makes it hard to share anything I've done unless I convert it to the local package management format of a distribution or I need to use a separate package manager in my home directory (somewhat similar to how Homebrew does things). I have a lot of programs that I use that aren't part of standard distributions (like Debian), so that means building a lot of source from scratch. Would be nice to find a better way to share some of the results somehow. For now, I'm just trying to share source and/or patches. (I typically try to send these upstream if possible and if they don't get used or the project is defunct or disorganized, I end up collecting a lot of modifications.) If you know of some existing distributions that might be interested in having some help building lightweight applications, I'd be curious to hear about it. Thanks. So far, I really haven't had any luck when trying to share applications with another distribution. I also highly customize my systems, so nothing works for me out-of-the-box. Guess that's why LFS seems so interesting.