Slashdot Mirror
Linux On Windows - The Thin End Of The Wedge?
AYeomans writes: "LINE version 0.3 has just been released.'LINE is a utility which executes unmodified Linux applications on Windows by intercepting Linux system calls. The Linux applications themselves are not emulated. They run directly on the CPU just like all other Windows applications.' Could this be the thin end, to which the Linux wedge is attached, allowing people currently tied to Windows the opportunity of easily using native Linux applications?" I wonder how many Windows users are actively waiting for Linux programs to use. (TuxRacer one day maybe?) The version number is low but this is an interesting, oddball project.
...for some good technical work.
Regardless of what you think of the idea, looks like some real smart people have pulled off something cool.
'Course Wine might have moved this fast with the Windows source code, but still...
Well, the author of LINE just says that LINE requires Cygwin so the ones who have not heard about it have not visited LINE home page.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I'm not sure this software will be very useful, but I'm not sure it's as dumb as people here seem to think.
/.. Whenever a linux guy says that his w2k box crashes all the time, I always assume he built it himself, or that he's overclocking or something like that. If you buy a Dell, it will work fine. To put it another way, it's certainly possible to make w2k solid, and if yours isn't, well you're not doing it right.
My windows 2000 desktop is rock solid. Machines that I've built myself aren't that great with windows, but my Dell never crashes. I think windows is pickier about hardware than linux.
I run linux (and BSD now) for the applications. Things like sendmail and apache, mutt, vim, and fetchmail.
Exchange might be a wonderful package (never used it), but it's expensive, and I'm running email for my own personal domain, not an enterprise -- so the thousands of dollars 2000 Server and Exchange would cost are out of the question. Outlook does a lot of nice stuff, but it won't let me read the headers (at least I haven't figured out how), things like that. Too much hand holding.
The problem with unix apps like sendmail is the learning curve. Once you know it, it really is good stuff, especially when it's free.
The whole idea that w2k isn't solid for a desktop is just silly, and the argument will only be taken seriously when you're preaching to the choir at places like
But at the same time, the idea that stability is the only drawing card of linux is silly too. Unix is simple, it's clean, and it's easy to use, once you've climbed up a bit on the learning curve. It's more than clean, it's elegant. And a lot of the apps are key -- if you want to run NAT, if you want to handle your email, if you want to filter net traffic, Linux or BSD is the way to go.
I'm not sure this particular software will be that useful -- it really makes more sense to me to just have two machines.
Windows does not have any concept of a fork.
Well, maybe not exactly...
"The CreateProcess function creates a new process, which runs independently of the creating process. The function provides two methods for identifying the program to be executed. ..."
WINE: Good for users because you can use Windows applications on Linux.
LINE: Good for users because you can use Linux applications on Windows.
The problem some people having with the Windows part of this is that they want to see Linux do better. Users don't care which does better. They just want more and better choices, and LINE gives them another choice. Open source doesn't empower users (not directly anyway) because they can't modify source (most of them are not programmers). Additional choices empower the users, because they are all capable of making choices.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I'm sorry, I can't believe for a minute that you seriously see Linux apps making headway into the desktop "productivity" software that is Microsoft's bread and butter. Microsoft will never allow it, they'll change some random part of the OS and break LINE as soon as Star Office or any non-MS application gets even a sliver of market penetration. Then they'll jump up and down and shout "Stable! Hah! It won't even run!" and the Linux community will be shafted just like we are with the buddy-buddy Microsoft and Hardware Vendor relationship that excludes us and makes us reverse engineer hardware just to write drivers. Microsoft people get to work on their drivers before the hardware release, we have to start from scratch when, and if, we can get our hands on one.
.NET and the service industry. OS and Hardware got them where they are, but they would be dumb to sit on their laurels. They're moving on into the application market, and since applications are much more static than operating systems and _FAR_ more static than hardware, they'll be even harder to dislodge there.
Now WINE on the other hand, I could see getting some slack from Microsoft. WINE still encourages the use of Microsoft products on the Application side. When Microsoft gets broken up, the Application side is where the real market dominance will show. The OS doesn't matter, it's transparent to the end user, use whatever you want, but the work? The data formats? All the things a _user_ will deal with? They will be Microsoft. As computer usage grows, Microsoft cares more about mindshare than it's OS. Let the technophiles use whatever OS they wish. The PHB and the average Joe don't care what OS they use as long as they know how to use the Apps. And Microsoft has by FAR the largest user base of all the application vendors.
Most people don't understand, Microsoft's future isn't in the OS, it's in the applications. It's in
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
...just think, now all the Micro$oft users can see how unstable Linux applications are when running under Windows -- talk about a great way to present bad publicity to the uninitiated masses.
--
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
...wine or plex86 inside this one...?
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Alternatively, you can run VNC on the Linux box together with the app, and let them use a VNC client or even a webbrowser (with Java) to get access to the application that way.
Yeah. The only thing holding me back from running Windows is the lack of decent apps. Not that I can run all of my wonderful Linux software, I've got no reason NOT to switch!
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Wow, that's terrific, I sit here on my Win2K desktop, and I'm just thinking, "I love the OS for it's stability, if only I could natively run ALL those *nix applications!, then I'd have the perfect desktop".
</SARCASM>
In fairness, this is moderately useful, I could run Apache/PHP locally for development work on my standard desktop, but that's roughly where the usefullness ends. I mean, obviously the use for this isn't X-Windows applications, although with an X-Server running it would be.
While WINE is a useful project, this isn't. I give the people working on it props, it's a neat idea, and probably a fun hack, but doesn't seem terribly useful. I mean, while this is definitely different than the Cygwin project, I'm of the opinion that Cygwin provides 75%-85% of the benefits of a project like this, so the extra effort of this project isn't worth it to "the community". However, as it is worth it to the developers, good luck.
At long last, the stability of windows with the broad application base of Linux -- we could make a less useful computer if we really put our minds to it!...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Okay, this seems to me like a pretty damn pointless application, the sort of thing that programmers churn out just to practice their programming skills rather than produce anything truly useful.
Think about it - you can already get most of the essential Linux tools over at Cygwin if you're after better command line tools. Otherwise, what does Linux have to offer? Most Linux software is perpetual alphaware or just a rehash of other projects (witness the truly scary number of CD front-ends out there). These programs already have free native Windows equivalents out there, and the Windows ones have often been in development longer (the big Linux bandwagon wasn't all that long ago) and can take advantage of Windows features.
And out of the few open sourced packages that are approaching professional quality, many of them are already available on Windows, like Apache. Sure there's the GIMP, but Windows users using Photoshop aren't going to want to change, and PaintShop Pro is pretty much the package of choice for low-end use.
I just don't see that there's any real use for this.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
I mean who cares if its useful or not?
;)
The only thing that matters is that its just so COOL. I say it again: Its just cool!
Warphal
Also, it's obvious that the author doesn't really know what he's talking about because:
1) - There is a version of GIMP that has been ported to Windows. 2) - There is a TuxRacer version for Windows.
Also, I tend to think that the apps on linux mostly suck when you are using linux as a desktop. Server applications are where linux shines, and if you were going to run something like apache webserver, why not just use the linux version on linux, or the windows version on windows?
Anyways, I think this could be an interesting project, but it's no holy grail to get people to start using linux apps since the applications for Windows are usually superior. It's the OS that everyone hates, not the applications (well, some of the applications too.)
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
Since the source of Linux is available and that of Windows isn't, LINE will surpass WINE. It is just a matter of when it will happen.
Then, I bet you'll be hearing people say "Hey, you can run all Linux apps on Windows but just sone Windows apps on Linux!! Why use Linux??"
The use I can foresee for this is running one of the Linux ICQ clones on Windows. The official Windows ICQ client is a bloated piece of cr@p, I've always found the "unofficial" Linux clones to be far superior.
I use bash on my windows box daily (along with sed, awk, gmake, uname, find, file, RCS-5.7, telnet, in.telnetd, and a host of other common tools).
Ever heard of Cygwin? It's a pretty damned fine piece of kit. It understands the way UNIX people work, and all that Windows stupidity at the same time. Brilliant, I say.
Wes
--
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Not so great for creating stability.
/etc or /conf'
As I write this, the link to the information has been slashdotted out of existence, so I'll have to make some assumptions.
First of all is the fact that this is going to have to intercept pretty much all file-system calls and do some pretty damn nifty conversion to get the different shells to work properly. Heaven help you if you try to chmod kernel32.dll or something like that... ^_^
Second is the fact that this is going to be a popular program amoung 'amature' hackers, and people who consider themselves hackers because they know a little more about their workstation than the guy in the next cube. For every guy who manages to get 'xeyes' to run, you're going to end up with two or three calls to any given IT department like this:
'My computer won't boot into Windows any more!'
'What did you do to it?'
'I tried to run linuxcfg, but it crashed and deleted my Windows directory when it couldn't find
'Hybrid' sytems are never fun to support.
If this works, however, and starts working reliably, it could be a great boon to getting certain apps ported over to Linux. If a Windoze software developer can run an app that will allow him to a compile a linux binary of his Windows program, it will start to open the door for a lot of 'effortless' porting work between the two OS's.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I think this is a Good Thing (TM)! It will give Linux applications more exposure. As people try all these new programs, they will beging to say "hey, with all this great stuff, I might as well completely switch to Linux!" Ok, maybe not.
Windows does not have any concept of a fork. Cygwin reimplements this as well as a unix like process table. It limits the number of processes to 127 and fork are very expensive with all the context switching going on to make it happen.
I'll back that up -- Cygwin is an excellent product, but watching shell scripts that fly on UNIX grind to a halt under Cygwin is pretty soul destroying. Shell scripts by their very nature are constantly forking new processes, and something simple like:
$filename=`echo $pathname | sed 's/.*\///' | tr 'A-Z' 'a-z'`
... is likely to take a couple of *seconds* under Cygwin as it forks 4 new processes, compared to a blink of an eye on Linux (this is on the Pentium 200 Laptop I took to America, and didn't dare uninstall Windows from).
I bit the bullet and just had a coffee while scripts that should have taken seconds took half an hour: if I'd been willing to recode, I could have used Perl and got far better performance, but I'd *really* like a free way to run bash, sh, or ksh under Windows at respectable speeds.
--