"Lindows" Coming Soon?

nstbbuff sent in a link to a story running at ZD about Lindows, a recently funded startup founded by MP3.com's old CEO that plans to sell a WINE oriented Linux dist for $99. As usual I'm skeptical about these sorts of things, but provided code is released back, I'm down with it. Meanwhile Transgaming is doing their thing, but with game-specific stuff. Their flagship release is The Sims, but theoretically many DirectX games should run under Windows. I'm still skeptical -- I mean, how many closed WINE forks does the world need?

Comments

the line...

[Q2Serpent]

theoretically many DirectX games should run under Windows


just about sums it all up. :)

-Serp

Even if it is a success, it will...

[frleong]

be just another OS/2. The WinOS/2 subsystem was so good that it killed OS/2. What's the fun of running Windows apps in Linux? Higher stability? But Win2K/XP is already quite good for this purpose and it comes preinstalled anyway. I think that if you really plan to use Linux, stay away from Windows apps and stick with native ones. Besides, we have VMWare for it and it almost guarantees 100% compatibility.

Re:Even if it is a success, it will...

[FatRatBastard]

I think they're going for the business market. I.e. they'll certifiy certain business apps to work with it and license it to companies at a rate less than M$ would charge. IF (and its a mighty big if) they can pull a distro off that runs a pretty good chunck of mainstream biz apps then they may be on to something. I wouldn't expect a mad rush over to them, but they might be able to carve a nice, niche biz out of it.

Re:Even if it is a success, it will...

[LordNimon]

You can run Win32 apps on OS/2. Just check out Project Odin. Also, VirtualPC for OS/2 will be out in a couple months.

You also might want to consider upgrading to eComStation. It's an updated version of OS/2 Warp 4, with lots of big and little improvements.

Transgaming patches are NOT closed source

[Wizard of OS]

I mean, how many closed WINE forks does the world need?

The transgaming patches are NOT closed source, they are just not Free Software. You can download them (see the winex project on sourceforge) or get them from CVS, you just can't use them for anything commercial. And ... as soon as they have enough subscribers, they'll release it all under the Wine license. Okay, I must note here that I don't know the specifics about that one, but it's more Free than the currently used Alladin license.

Re:Installer support?

[cloudmaster]

You're wrong. :) Many (most?) need some sembelance of a registry, and some work better with dlls from a windows install, but you can get by with most to all of the apps that work on wine without a FAT or NTFS (which partition format did you mean?) filesystem or a win 3.x/9x/me/nt/xp/2K (which windows did you mean?) install. The dlls don't know what OS they're living under, and the "registry" was emulated by a flat text file the last time I tried wine out - which was admittedly a while back.

Wait now, I'm confused...

[FortKnox]

Confused confused confused!

You want Linux, cause its stable and wonderful. But we want to run DirectX. So lets emulate windows in linux. Now lets emulate DirectX in the emulated windows in linux.

Simplify the equation, and you have "run windows with native DirectX".

Wouldn't the "best" solution be to update the SDL to run DirectX natively in X on linux?

This story makes it appear that the average Linux zealot is willing to take the time to emulate windows and DirectX for gaming, but not willing to just emulate directX natively....

OK, I just read what I wrote and confused myself even worse...

Re:Wait now, I'm confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a few base classes of emulators:

1) "Classic emulators": These emulators provide a dedicated memoryspace for the target platform, provide CPU emulation, and provide some means to interact the "virtual computer" with the host operating system. (Think SoftPC, KEGS or SNES9x)

2) "Translators": These emulators, upon loading, convert the target platform's code to code compatible with the host platform (Like MIPS->X86). Libraries of the target are either mapped to native libraries or new libraries are written. Dedicated memory is likely to be required if the target application does not have a memory manager. Think UltraHLE here.

3) "Virtualized Systems": Provide seperate interfaces to the hardware of the host system to different operating systems thereon. May include combining ethernet packets, sharing access to IDE controllers, providing a means to change access to the video hardware etc. Think Plex86 or "Classic Environment" (OS X).

4) "API Emulators": Host and target are the same platform, but different operating systems. Rather than provide a direct means to share hardware as in virtualized systems, the libraries used by the target operating system are mapped to libraries on the host, or new libraries are written to provide easy compatibility. This is what Wine is.

Why?

[scott1853]

I know I'm going to get modded as troll or flamebait, and I'm sure this has been asked before, but...

given the attitudes of the zealots that think Linux software is superior, and that open source is superior to everything closed, then why is this considered such a big deal, and even supported by the Linux community?

Everybody talks about how much Windows and MS software sucks, but then they turn around and do their best to emulate it. I'm not just talking about WINE either, this topic extends into the GUIs. They all take things from Windows.

Anonymous Cowards need not respond.

Re:Why?

[turbine216]

you bring up a good point, one that definitely does not deserve to be flamed.

Linux users (myself included) like Linux because it's stable, it's secure, and it runs Linux apps really well. I've NEVER crashed a linux workstation...never.

Windows users (again, myself included) like Windows because it is so much easier to use than Linux (an easy-to-use GUI is just that, and people recognize it for what it is). Its apps are bloated, buggy, and riddled with security flaws, but when they work, they work REALLY REALLY WELL. That's simply a result of having 10 years worth of REAL development support, and a huge bank of developers.

So it stands to reason that any Linux user with any sense would want to do one of two things: either (a) run some windows apps in Linux, or (b) develop similar or better apps for Linux. The problem with developing apps for linux lies in the severe lack of support for it. So if you don't have enough people or enough collective experience to really work on development, what's the next best thing? That's right...use the apps that have already been developed under windows, but use them in Linux. That way, only one emulator needs to be developed that will (hopefully) cover all of the windows apps.

Any linux zealot who tells you that windows is useless is just that...a zealot. Linux is good for what it does, and Windows is also good for what it does. After all, this IS a capitalistic structure we're dealing with, so as always - YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. As much as we don't like it, every time someone spends money on a Windows distro, some of that money is channelled back into developing a better windows. Linux quite simply does not have that advantage; and as much as we would like it to, the Open Source/Free software development system just isn't as effective as the closed source/marketed software approach.

Just my 2 cents...take it for what it's worth.

Re:Why?

[turbine216]

well, there are actually very few specific things, most of them the obvious ones:

1 - MS Office XP beats the hell out of staroffice - i don't care who you ask, or what they say about office, the open source alternative just doesn't stack up.

2 - Windows is better for games. Quite simply, if i want to run a Windows game at maximum performance, I'm going to run it under windows. Emulating windows or creating compatibility layers just doesn't perform the way real Windows does. This particular feature is probably the only reason that i HAVE to use windows.

3 - Windows for Cakewalk/ProTools/other music editing/recording stuff. Linux just doesn't have it, simple as that. And even the apps that it does have tend to quibble with my sound cards. This is also evident in video editing apps...video capture and edit just doesn't make sense on a Linux box at present.

4 - Linux for just about everything else. E-Mail, news, web surfing, web design, graphic design, PERL, and a few other tasks work remarkably well under Linux. I really like the streamlining that you find in a lot of Linux design apps...for instance, GIMP vs Photoshop is no contest when it comes to usability.

So Linux definitely has the really basic tasks down, but when it comes to more involved software such as big, graphically-intense games and productivity software, Windows takes it.

Re:Why?

[Chris Burke]

Well, I still think that the perceived ease-of-use of the Windows GUI is just that -- perceived. Or perhaps more accurately learned. As usual, I point to the opinions of Mac users on the Win gui and vice versa. Oh, and it's also better in that category than Linux GUI's, but I don't care. :)

Its apps are bloated, buggy, and riddled with security flaws, but when they work, they work REALLY REALLY WELL. That's simply a result of having 10 years worth of REAL development support, and a huge bank of developers.

What is, the bugs and security flaws? Ah, but I jest. Though surely you were jesting about having REAL development support and a huge bank of developers? I think the list of contributors to Software Libre would amply satisfy any definition of "huge". At least in comparison to those employed by any one development house.
Any linux zealot who tells you that windows is useless is just that...a zealot.

Anyone who makes a blanket statement like that is a zealot, indeed. As always I say use what suits your purpose. If that is the newest games, or sound editing, or 3D Studio Max (as opposed to suitably sophisticated modeling software in general), use Windows. Since I need none of that, I can without zealotry say that Windows is useless. For me, obviously.

I used to try to sell people on Linux, but I find that its best to just expose them to it, and let them gravitate toward what works for them. I've gotten more converts that way than I did before. :)

After all, this IS a capitalistic structure we're dealing with, so as always - YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

That's just not true -- particularly with regards to Software Libre. After all, you got an OS that never crashed your workstation for free. The truth is that "IF you get what you pay for, you can't really complain." Also, as a corrollary, "If you get LESS than what you pay for, you have every right to be pissed." This is why official support for Linux by corporations is a big deal. Then you have someone to bitch at who you can reasonably expect to take you at least seriously enough to fabricate a scapegoat.

Linux quite simply does not have that advantage; and as much as we would like it to, the Open Source/Free software development system just isn't as effective as the closed source/marketed software approach.

I would say that is dubious at best, demonstrably untrue at worst. There are two things that you must consider when judging the performance of the two models - prevelance and longetivity. Closed source is the dominant development model. The companies developing closed source software are multitudinous, and though many only produce one or two apps, that's still a lot of software in the codebase. Sift out the crap, and you'll end up with some pretty nice programs. Software Libre is growing very rapidly, but is still behind in this aspect to be sure. Second is longetivity. Software Libre projects are, for the most part, fairly new. When you compare Gimp to Photoshop, remember how old Photoshop is compared to Gimp. Or KDE to the Win95 shell. Or StarOffice to MS Office -- and also remember that StarOffice started as a closed-source app, as did Mozilla. It is impossible to measure such things as "code effectiveness" quantitatively, which is why I wouldn't say that Software Libre is without a doubt better. However, my qualitative analysis tells me that the days that you can find virtually any closed source apps that are better than any libre counterpart are numbered.

Hey, that's great!

[MajorBurrito]

Now I can use all my Cygwin stuff in Linux!

They're calling it WHAT?

[kzinti]

Wouldn't the more appropriate name be "winux"?

--Jim

Re:They're calling it WHAT?

[MrFredBloggs]

Hey hey HEY - GNU Winux to you, buddy...lest the hairy one gets upset.

Win4Lin

[HiThere]

A better comparison would be Win4Lin. This appears to be essentially a distribution with Windows access integrated. That is essentially what Win4Lin is, they just aren't including the Linux. This results in problems whenever your distribution upgrades.

I think that this may have a reasonable chance of success. I wouldn't put it any higher, but reasonable.

If I wanted to use this at work, it would need to support the Novell logon procedures, and MSOffice 2000 (perhaps I would be able to substitute KOffice or StarOffice, but there is not substitute for the Novell logon).

If I wanted to use this at home ... well, the only reason that I can think of is for Windows games.

If I wanted my wife to use this at home it would need to support the HP all-in-one OfficeJet products. Scanner as well as printer. And an old program from PassPort Designs called "Encore!" (a music editing program). Deneba Canvas would be a real plus. So would Pokemon (this is a real non-standard program, though... installing it on Win95 kills the current HP all-in-one drivers ... if Lindows could handle both of them my wife would beg me to convert her!)

Re:Is age a good thing?

[Bouncings]

Being from mp3.com, he's probably trying to point out Linux's age to potential investors and skeptics out there. In a day when three-year-old companies with one-year-old products go belly up daily, basing your product on one that's been around for a decade probably makes good business sense.

The answer.

[Xerithane]

I mean, how many closed WINE forks does the world need?

42

Re:$99? Lindows?

[Doomdark]

I did when I bought my PC (assembled from parts); the price was OEM price (I think), but I could have chosen otherwise. That was few months back, and if I did it again I probably wouldn't include any W-OS.

Nowadays I don't have much need for Windows; StarOffice works ok, imports/exports MS Office stuff nicely, TV-card has support & apps, can burn CD, encode oggs. Even browsing with Mozilla is on par with IE on Windows. The only remaining issue are games... And there are signs indicating things will get better in near future. :-)

Likewise, I did purchase a version of BeOS at one point, have paid for some of the Linux installations (and copied/downloaded some). I don't like stealing, and hypocritical "Windows sux but I still steal a copy" people are pathetic.

Age != Beauty, or The Other Good Things Abt Linux

[d.valued]

Linux is much more than 'a ten-year-old product.'

It's also:
-A network fileserver which can do RAID entirely in software (my in-house fs is doing an IDE and a SCSI RAID 5.. you need that kind of reliability when you're making movies!);
-Able to take advantage of almost any configuration of hardware, from an 80386 with 4MB RAM and a 40 MB HD to an multiprocessor Itanium with gigs of RAM and teras of HD, to distributed supercomputing a la Beowulf (To contrast: WinXP Home can only use a 300Mc+ single processor Intel32/AMD architecture; Pro can use up to eight SMP processors of the Intel32/AMD variety;Mac OS X needs a G3 or better; both need at least 256 MB RAM and more than a gig of HD to be run properly.)
-The most configurable Internet servers possible;
-Great workstations for almost any apps you can think of;
-The most evolutionary software product out there.

That last feature is The Big Deal(tm). Linux is a kernel which has been evolving since release 0.0.1. It's gradually expanded to every kind of processor possible, developing the ability to work with a wicked lot of hardware, growing to PCMCIA utilization; video acceleration support; USB & 1394 access; and ust about any filesystem of significance can be at least read by Linux.

Now.. I haven't had the chance or the excuse to use WINE yet, but I hope it works (so I don't need a Windows partition on my new laptop.. a vaio.. (drool)... (cleaning off my chin... sorry)) because I want to be able to use an old, pre-DMCA (can we say no Macrovision problems? I knew we could!) PCMCIA card which could both capture video without processor overhead at 1/2 resolution (it accepts PAL, SECAM, and NTSC input) and act as a TV tuner anywhere in the world. I haven't seen any info on it working under Linux, so I must use the mabnufacturer-provided software and perform acts of RevEnge on it (since the pricks at Nogatech have refused to give me any useful data on the card.... jerks)

If this 'Lindows' distribution works, it would be a boon for all us open-source types, because one more barrier to entry would be lowered and the bar of stability under Linux (or *BSD, for that matter) is miles above that of even this new bastard XP. (I'd place money they've got some GPL code in there. I can just smell it.)