Slashdot Mirror
What's up with Lindows?
A reader writes "In this editorial at DesktopLinux.com, commentator Malcolm Dean questions whether Lindows is any sort of linux at all, and suggests that the world might actually be better off without yet another proprietary/commercial Windows wannabe (that runs Windows apps, no less). Dean asks how it is possible that, as Lindows.com founder Michael Robertson manages to claims in his latest newsletter, Lindows' ten million lines of code include a Windows Compatibility Module that somehow works better than anything else available today. "Has Mr. Robertson's team accomplished in a few months what took WINE years?" Where is the substance to back the hype? Besides, what if Lindows does succeed: do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform?"
How does this relate to the Wine project? Is there any chance of Lindows ever releasing any code back to them?
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Ahhhh....
What "Lindows" has achieved and WINE has failed is in the game of namesake.
If WINE was named "Winux", it may have a better chance for success.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
What's wrong with this? I haven't used it, but I think the real test should be "does it work"? IF so, then great, he did something that WINE couldn't. If not, then so what, don't use it. Simple. And the reason to perpetuate windows apps is that they are currently the dominant standard. The same reason you don't see many web pages with embeded corel draw vector images.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
The problem of Microsoft's monopoly will not be solved by making Windows emulating layers over Linux. Their monopoly is based on the "double" monopoly they have on Office and on Windows. If Office runs on Lindows or on Wine, you can trust Microsoft will find ways to make it runeable only on Windows, as complete compatibility is unpossible with all the undocumented features there is in Windows. IMHO the only way to break Microsoft's Monopoly is to break it on the 'Office' Apps, not on the OS layer.
If Lindows stops being able to run i386 ELF executables, then we have a problem. In the best of all worlds, Linux could have a compatibility module for Java bytecode, 68000 and PPC Mac apps, Windows, ELF, and all the other major platforms out there, just so people have no excuse when using the other, less fun operating systems.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
then run Windows!!
No OS can run Windows apps better than Windows itself.
Ten million lines of code ? Holly molly... instead of wasting your time on making linux run windows apps, why dont you make better *LINUX* apps for LINUX ?
What versions of Windows is this likely to replace ? If it`s only Windows 95/98 then surely this product is going to have a fairly short shelf life.
...What they should do is rename from Lindows to 'LinuxToo', because they're bound to reach the same fate...
> Where is the substance to back the hype?
What hype? I have hardly even read about it here on Slashdot.
I don't see the point in Lindows because Wine could almost certainly do the same things and you would still have the power of X11/Unix alongside it.
Do you want the simplicity of Windows, not the power of X11/Unix? Sigh....
I want the simplicity and power of TUNES. Anything else (including X11/Unix) sucks.
I guess we now know happened to all that stolen M$ source code.;-)
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
They probably stole the WINE code anyway. If it's closed source, prove otherwise.
I'll gladly use Windows software. Hell, I just paid $3 for a game that the fucking thieves at Loki are porting and will sell for full price if they don't go bankrupt before they finish it, which if there is a God, they will.
How many people are in the team? You know, the linux kernel has like 30 millions lines of code, which have been coded by many talented programmers, matured through the years, and then this guy claims that his product has 10 million lines of code in A FEW MONTHS?! wow.
Or has he already made Lindows so "Windows Compatiable" that even the whole team/company emulates Microsoft in all aspects? Maybe he's just a clone of Bill.
Don't quote me on this.
In fantasy terms:
No, Mr. Robertson. If you breed an angel with a demon, you don't get an angel able to cast death magick.
In my book, Lindows is not any sort of Linux at all. If it is commercial, then even if it runs Linux software, has a Linux look or even if it is somehow related to a true Linux, it ain't Linux.
Linux is not the penguin. Linux is the smile on the penguin's face.
// Ego sum Nucivorax, me clamare audi.
Why would anybody want to be able to run fewer programs than there was the potential for? There are thousands of extremely useful Windows programs out there (believe it or not, it's true!) and being able to run them on Linux can only be a good thing.
Programs are tools. Why would anybody choose to limit the amount of tools in their toolkit, when some of the forsaken tools could help them get their job finished much earlier?
Good luck to those who would add to the functionality of Linux!
Lindows is a good idea, This guy has about 20 programmers working full time. Wine programmers usually work part time.
This Lindows company can also look at the wine code and simply copy it without copying it sorta, just look at how everything works, make your own version OR, just snatch up wine and add to it.
Also Lindows could have been in development for a couple of years now, you never know.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I for one, dont want to see it ever happen.
this will no nothing but encourage M$ to do more harm.
now.. do we want any more buggy M$ type software running loose? I think not.
bet: this ever gets released, and works..
microsoft will:
A. sue.
B. make all their applications break on lindows.
if its more stable they will:
A. install lindows on all their machines.
B. use it to make more borg software
oh well, looks like we will lose anyhow.
Imagine someone whoes running Lindows:
idiot:Yay im running linux!
idiot2:So what apps do u run
idiot:oh OfficeXP, OutlookExpress, Photoshop, ya know, the usual.
idiot2:cool, but windows does that so much better.
A lot of people i know will run Lindows just so that they are running Linux, not because linux does more for them than windows does. It seems an aufull long way to go just to fly a flag.
I have always, and probably will always, ran windows onthe desktop while using linux for the backend. It all works so much better that way in my eyes.
Don't you have the feeling that this will give an argument to Microsoft, towards "Your Honor, there *is* competition in OS and apps business..."?
:)
I don't really think the average consumer will see the advantage of running windows apps in a restricted environment. Even so, if you run, let's say, an unpatched outlook, with your real address book - when SirCam/whatever eventually hits you there's little difference from running pure Windows: it will send itself to everybody and will infect/delete the "sandbox" itself. For most of the people this will mean "everything".
To sum it up, apart from giving M$ something to mention (or not) in court and to give someone the opportunity to run a hybrid os, I don't see any real uses for Lindows. Nor do I see a market segment or even a niche for it.
What's this about again?
The Windows Monopoly is because, YOU DONT GET TO CHOOSE.
No one and I mean absolutely no one had the chance to choose Windows, it simply came with every computer.
You didnt have the CHANCE to choose OS2 because it wasnt an Option.
The same reason everyone uses Internet Explorer is why people use Windows. Because its already there, and it works.
If Lindows can manage to get OEMs to pack it into their computers, This will be the beginning of the end of the Microsoft Monopoly.
At this point people will be able to say, "Hey Lindows runs Windows software and Linux software, I dont use Linux but my friend whos a technician seems to keep telling me about it. hmmm"
This is the reaction Lindows will make, and from here its up to the open source community, and Lindows to get people to switch over.
IF Lindows has a nice OSX style GUI (I doubt it but its a nice wish)
And if Lindows can use most Windows software, Lindows will be a hit.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
What about people who want to run both Windows AND Linux apps?
I know what you'll say. "Dual Boot!!!"
What about people who want to run both at the same time?
I see, now you are speechless because theres not any other choice besides Lindows, or Wine.
Instead of forcing people to run one OS, why cant we run them both or them all even from one OS?
Why do some Linux users feel they are ELITE and that Windows users dont have the right to run Linux apps and Linux users dont have the right to run Windows apps, thats as bad as whem schools were seperated by race or when schools were seperated by Gender. I mean really.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
IF this turns out to be another Nautilus type Project then Lindows is screwed but with Millions of dollars you can in theory write alot of software and higher quality software than Wine.
Wine is good but Wine needs to be intergrated into an OS, not as a seperate program. Wine isnt really a program and you shouldnt have to run it seperately, Even if Lindows just is the first distro to intergrate Wine then they have done a good job in my opinion. If they added 10 million Lines of code on top of Wine they have done a GREAT job.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
lindows my fucking arse.
What happened to LinuxOne, btw?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
It wouldnt surprise me if Lindows did something just like that.
They speak of not having to partition your harddrive??
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Why are we debating this? I hate to be so skeptical, I hate to sound like a troll, but Lindows sounds like vaporware to me, at best. At worst it sounds like snake-oil -- since you have dish out $99 for a preview release. Let's wait until this thing comes out before we get into these little stupid debates.
A couple of years back Gatway baught the rights to all of the Amiga patents. They promised a new Amiga computer. They put up a website with designs, talked about how it would work, how it would change the world. The website said Amiga was comming back in a big way and promised to release a new computer within a year.
As a member of the Amiga communitiy I participated in fierce debates about things like: Should the new amiga use USB or Firewire? What should the main processor be? If it doesn't run the same Amiga OS is it still an Amiga? And more importantly how will the new Amiga affect current software venders? How difficult will it be to port programs? etc. etc.
In the end, Gateway sold off its patents, never released anything, and I wasted a bunch of time.
Lindows could have been in development for a few years for all you know.
Also the Linux kernel is developed by a few programmers in their spare time, Programmers coding for 10 hours a day 5-6 days a week produce alot of code.
The development team isnt godlike, but when you have the kinda money that this company has behind it, Yes its easy to believe they could write 10 million lines in a couple of years.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The author of the above editorial obviously didn't read the page too well... No wait, I take that back. The page has changed.
Here's the quote, from a Wired article. It's a doosy. Apparantly Lindows has taken Wine, under the ever-so-exploitable modified BSD licence (there has been talked of changing to the LGPL soon, to ensure people like this DO feed changes back into the main tree...) and (rumor) stuck some chinese developers behind it to hack on the functionality Wine has been missing.. DCOM (supported somewhat by Transgamings WineX) and some extended Shlwapi functions. Woop.
Lindows achieves Windows compatibility by using pieces of Wine, which is software that allows Windows applications to run in Unix that has been in development since 1993.
Wine is only a part of the overall Lindows compatibility layer, Robertson said. The rest will come from software developed in-house. .
Yes, if you want to run windows apps, run windows for fucks sake. Wine and such things are nice if you want to run a single app once in a while, but if you are planning on using wine all the time you might as well run windows, damnit.
Some examples of good Windows software.
Games.
Reason,Rebirth, etc (Muscians tools)
Thats reason enough to build Lindows, to make it easier to do things only Windows can do.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I think its going after XP considering the licensing situation, .net, passport and so on. I think the target is XP. People will use Windows98 and WindowsME, but people arent really caring as much about XP. XP isnt the best at games like 9x, and Windows is mostly used because its good with gaming.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
It says Lindows should be available this month. So is this true?
That's why network effects benefit the biggest player in the field and kill off the smaller players.
If Lindows succeeds, this would greatly benefit Linux, because the userbase that can run Linux apps would increase (see above: this means more Linux-users and also more native Linux-apps) and the playingfield would be just a bit more leveled.
EVERYTHING that increases interoperability with Windows and decreases incompatibility is helping Linux and Linux-users.
Of course if Lindows remains too closed, their chances are slim.
The open-source community has created drivers for most hardware, supports most CPUs and has created an almost complete set of applications. No company can achieve something like this. That's why all commercial OSes were quickly killed off, but Linux gained marketshare. In a leveled playing field (= PC-makers are no longer threatened by MS to preinstall Windows and another reasonable Win32-compatible alternative exists (Lindows or Linux with Wine, or something else)) Windows would not last long.
Lindows uses Wine code, but Lindows wrote alot of its own code.
So really its not Wine, its just using Wine code.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
But we have to get more people using Linux and this is the only way to do it.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Of linux zealot stupidity.
"What if people want to use windows software on linux."
Hey jack-ass I'll let you in on a tip. Not all windows software is from MS. There are alot of good free programs for windows that would be useful if they worked in a linux box.
Besides if MS is so bad and windows sucks so much, why are linux zealots spending time on bridging the gap in the first place? Oh thats right because for personal use windows is a *zillion* [I counted...] times better, easier, faster and more productive.
Go and hide under a rock you dumb "I wannabe a cool linux zealot" loser!
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
The original article touts never needing to add
hardware, hundreds of software available for
purchase with a mouse click and can run Windows
and Linux apps.
I'd guess Lindows is a fancy thin client terminal.
Perhaps a free OS running Citrix or some VNC-like
app.
-m
Omg you just spammed the department of justice. Can you imagine how many trolls just sent their proposed settlements?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
i think what really would be needed are competitive native linux apps which people would actually want to buy. a main reason why people want to run windows apps under linux is that the want to use linux but they have the necessity to work with word/excel/powerpoint files. these files are all over the place and its a sad fact that there is nearly no way to escape them: even governments or, for example, the european commission, requires reports and other stuff to be supplied in word format. so the optimal solution for me would be that the antitrust court ruling would require microsoft to make public and stick to a usable document format or at least a usable and fully working interchange format. this would enable competitors to offer their own office applications for whatever operating system without isolating their users. official standard formats for office documents would have been even more needed then W3 standards already for some time. the sad thing is that what is called "industrial standard" now is not a standard at all: it is not documented, MS is free to change it at any time, and who knows if they are not even free to sue others who use that format. sadly, it looks like the latest chance to open up the market has passed unused. any solution that will offer a windows environment under linux or other OSs will eventually face the fate of OS/2.
1. Has a *real* person actually used this?
2. Did they really install it in 3 clicks like the website says
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
The only real desktop market at this time is for Windows desktops. So how to you compete in that market? The most obvious answer is: Run Windows apps as well as Windows, and do something that Windows doesn't do. In this case, they're trying to achieve that by taking Wine on Linux, extend it and package it as a Windows clone.
They get to benefit from all driver work and performance enhancements done by the open source community for Linux and Wine, and add to that to be able to put out a Windows environment at far lower development cost than Microsoft. Leveraging open source is quite possibly the ONLY way to compete in the Windows market, considering the immense sales revenues Microsoft has to fund their development.
This is a good thing, regardless of whether you like Windows or not: If Lindows succeeds, Microsoft will be forced to cut prices to compete. If you like Windows you will benefit from lower prices, if you hate Windows you will benefit from having Microsoft busy spending their resources on a more direct competitor as well as with less money to spend on squashing competitors, as being forced to cut prices will have a very real effect on their earnings.
This product dosent seem worthwhile since win4lin and wine have been out for ages!
Here is a OS for Everything! AllOS the everything OS
AllOS uses a special kernel, it would understand all languages of code (such as i386, ppc, IA64, ARM, etc) and run on every platform regardless of hardware. It can run programs from every known OS (Windows, Unix, Mac, BeOS, Linux, Amiga, CP/M, and many more) and would understand roms from every game conosle, it would be able to set up a UNIFIED Communication layer between apps . So you will be able to do stuff like Copy to the clipboard in WINOTEPAD and paste in to some wacky 1970's unix application. Mac apps could kill BE APPS. And best of all, since it can understand everything, it has something called dynamic cross compilation. Compile a program and it will generate binarys for multiple OSes!
Such an OS would be very complex and i don't think i even know 0.00000001% of how it would be done. Its a big project, could YOU do it, remember this is the Os of all Oses!
Lindows aside, I'd have to say yes. There's obviously some sort of desire for this, because this IS why WINE exists right? @_@;
Call on God, but row AWAY from the rocks!
do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform?"
Face it. There is no way in hell all software will be available for Linux, and if a company cannot run that mission critical app, then they won't switch to Linux.
Let me give you an example. I'm from Norway. Companies tend to want programs where they can do their accounting - which has all norwegian tax-rules, and so forth ad nauseum programmed into them.
In norway we have some software called 'Guru Software' or something like that, and surely others too. Its windows applications.
Now, a company which has done its accounting in that software for a couple of years is quite locked down. Its not an easy task to just switch to Linux. The windows-software _needs_ to run on linux, so that previous years accounting information is easily accessible. Of course, one could always hope that the company would make a linuxversion of the software, but that isn't always easy.
Now, microsoft 'owns' such companies as long until Linux can run this kind of windows software perfectly. And the answer is 'yes' -- we want the ability to run such software under Linux. If not, well then we're not gonna get such companies as users.
Take another example. I'm currently doing civil service in Norway, in part of a city adminstration. We're 'locked in' on using Windows, as a lot of proprietary solutions we are using is windows-only applications. They run on windows servers, and the clients only exist for windows.
These are products in the health and social sectors, with highly specialized use. Its not very likely that the free software movement will produce software that less than 20 relatively small institutions worldwide will use, which is of this enourmous complexity.
The answer is that we _need_ the ability to run windows apps, and yes, it is something we _want_. IF not, we've lost a _LOT_ of potential users, which are 'locked in'.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Besides, what if Lindows does succeed: do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform.
... people aren't just going to switch from Windows to Linux because there's no software, and there will continue to be no software if there is no people to sell/give it to.
... a solution to which would be a benefit to us all, whether we'd like to admit it or not.
What kind of comment is this? Software is software, and right now some of the new, great software is a heck of a lot easier to write for the Windows platform.
The community's way of dealing with that should be to create a way to run all of this software on the Linux OS. It is doing this well, IMO.
The problem with some of these anti-MS advocats is that they think they can take over the market in one fell swoop. Well, I'm sorry it's just not going to happen that way
Making Windows software run on Linux is a perfect bridge here, even if Lindows is not free, it still solves a problem
----- rL
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If something isnt broke, why fix it?
Its not that people dont care, they dont know any better.They arent knowledgeable enough to know theres something better than windows better than IE, and so on and so forth.
They use AOL because they believe AOL IS the internet, not a client to access it.
They use Microsoft Windows because they believe Windows IS the computer, and that theres nothing else to use.
You see, if people arent given a chance to choose in a store when they go to buy their computer, they automatically assume that because Windows is all thats being sold, that Windows is all there is.
Proof- Not so long ago, people believe that in order to buy a PC, you had to buy an Intel Pentium, people even called PCs Intel Boxes, or Pentiums. When a person wanted to buy a Video Card before Nvidia arrived, People went for a Voodoo, not because Voodoo was the only card but because thats all that people saw in the stores, sure there were other cards but what card did all games seem to support? The Voodoo cards.
Sure theres always been choice, but if every corperation, every store, everywhere you go, you dont see any choice, you just see one product, eventually in your mind thats it, theres nothing else to choose from. After years of only computers packed with Windows, it will be quite a shock to see a computer packed with Lindows, but if Lindows can prove to the user that its better than Windows,
Like Nvidia beat Vodooo, and AMD beat Intel, Lindows may beat Windows.
However, IF Microsoft forces OEMs to only use Windows from Microsoft, and people like Dell dont even sell you a computer with anything else, well, what do you expect to happen here?
I'm happy to see Lindows stand up to Microsoft and give them serious competition, the problem with OS2 is, it wasnt competition at all, it actually helped sell Microsoft Windows because OS2 sat in the backround, no OEM sold OS2 computers, not even IBM the makers of OS2 sold OS2 on their own Machines.
Just like Mozilla and Netscape cant catch up to IE because AOL wont use Netscapes browser on their own software.
So what do you expect to happen when Linux users dont support Lindows?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
is there any screenshots anywhere?, i would like to see what soemthing like this will look like.
Bet you feel redundant right about now...
I think that we are looking at this wrong.
Why not a emulation/compatibility layer that deals with the OSX cocca and carbon apps for linux?
This would give businessmen a real chance to ditch our windows apps. We could run office, adobe, etc.
You would see a real effort on the part of software developers to port their apps to the mac.
Just as an aside, the founder of Lindows also founded mp3.com
THia aituation reminds me of that with OS/2 back in the mid-90's. OS/2 was technically superior to Windows (especially in the win 3.1 era, before win '95), but because it allowed Windows and MS-DOS software to run transparently, there was little incentive to port applications as native code.
There were other reasons for OS/2's decline, but a lack of a native app code base was one major one. The efforts spent developing a Windows compatible layer on top of Linux would be better spent porting important apps (Photoshop, Games, Dreamweaver, etc.) to Linux as native apps. Of course before that happens, Linux GUIs need to be fine-tuned and driver support made less buggy.
Building tools to allow software developers to port their apps into Linux-native code would be best in the long run.
Virtual Windows on top of Linux and dual-booting (especially since LILO and GRUB are so persnicketty) are not long-term recipes for success.
Linux developers should either cede the desktop to Microsoft or develop native tools and apps and port Windows products to native code.
Just like OS/2, Linux had a technical advantage (in some ways) over Windows up until now, but with the introduction of Win XP, that advantage is lessening.
Time is of the essence. Lindows is a counterproductive retreat.
evanchik.net
I agree 100%...certain things are only availble for windows (right now) such as AutoCAD and a few others...unfortunate but true for the moment, so some of us are still forced to use 'dows.
you a winna , ha ha ha
In all seriousness, I think it's been painfully clear for a long time that there's an enormous double standard in play in the OSS field. Everyone claims to want to improve Linux and make it more useful, but as soon as someone claims they have a way to remove the biggest single barrier preventing the 95% of desktop users currently running Windows convert to Linux, then everyone gets pissy about it.
My suggestion: Quit your damn whining and wait and see what Lindows delivers. If it works, it will end MS's monopoly faster than you can say "Ralph Nader". If it doesn't, then we can make fun of it and move on.
I've tried Lindows and its amazing!!! Seriously - even the setup program looks _exactly_ like the real windows setup program. Every part of the system looks the same as the Micro$oft version, it even crashes in the same places!! infact, if you covered up the 'Lindows' logo on the CD case and gave it to an expert, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference!! - you see, as a joke, the creators used the title 'windows' instead of 'lindows' on every part of he os - the start-up the EULA, even the help files, these guys managed to recreate the look and feel of the entire oparating system, they are gods! infact its almost like they just copied windows bit-for-bit - amazing!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Haven't we learned anything from OS/2? Without Windows compatibility OS/2 would have failed miserably. Oh wait, it did fail miserably. Sorry, I must have been thinking of something else...
For a long time I've been saying that in the future there will be no linux users or vegetarians, and the world will be ruled by a company called McAOLSoft.
Dump linux, use AOL and eat hamburgers
make better *LINUX* apps for LINUX ?
What about SCO? Solaris? AIX? BSD?
Here you are advocating just Linux. Just like M$ advocates JUST windows. What an improvement!
some of the greatest apps ever made were written for windows. yeah, i'd love to run them under linux.
I already said this in a reply, but I felt that it was a valid thought that needed to be heard. So don't mod me up, because I'm not posting this to get Karma.
First. Let's say Lindows works well. A bunch of people switch to it, because it's stable like Linux, but can run Windows applications. Maybe over the course of a few years, it gets 40% (or more) of the home users. Well, if enough users get on Lindows, developers will probably start wanting to develop for it. Since Linux will still be it's base, that's what side they may make it for.
So, actually, Linux may get new applications out of this. May. Some may stick to what they know - Windows - or develope for the probably still dominant operating system - Windows. Hopefully, Mr. Robertson will promote the developement of applications for Linux.
My Journal - 1,337 fans and countin
We arent talking about me. We arent talking about you.
We are talking about the average user. Windows comes with the computer, So Windows IS the computer.
AOL cd shows up at their door, AOL comes with the computer, AOL IS THE INTERNET.
And, lastly, IE comes with windows, so IE is the world wide web.
Its not like Netscape and IE comes with windows.
IF you are using Windows, You'll use all of Microsofts software because its there not because its the best.
And you use Microsofts software simply because its there and it works, not because it works well.
Its not like AOL cds are shipped with competitors software on it
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Vaporware is what I call it.
Two months ago, they didn't have a decent site up, just a 1 page press release.
Just about the same time there was a small article about it in pcmag I think, very thin on any info, giving the same fodder about running Win apps on linux and blah....blah
There was an announcement that they'd be releasing an alpha/beta at the end of the year, then we can take a look at it ourselves.
But, if what they say is true, then hell they probably have half of India churning out code for them.
Yes, BSD license is exploitable, that's what poeple using this license want.
*BSD operating system would probably not have had such a great influence in the world of computing if they used a different license such as GPL...
By the way NetBSD kick ass!
Suffice it to say that the problem was solved while these id10ts were busily browsing for p0rn:
Win4Lin, which has actually worked for the past two years and is going to be distributed with Mandrake 8.2.
Plex86, whose name changes on a regular schedule.
VMWare, still usable despite the developers' best efforts.
Wine, the massive, ongoing masturb^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hemulation effort.
All of these work (listed in decreasing order of compatibility). Lin4Win is actually kept up to date, and is the only solution that runs Windows faster in emulation than in native mode (because it uses the Linux filesystem and block cache). This also keeps the registry from getting trashed -- even after 2+ years, my registry is still clean and Windows hasn't scribbled over itself.
In fact, Win4Lin works so well that some disgruntled Wine developers took it upon themselves to announce Netraverse's demise on f*ckedcompany last summer. That's high praise indeed.
P.S. -- I don't work for Netraverse, I'm just extremely happy with Win4Lin and their free upgrades for life.
People seem to forget the true way for Linux to compete... instead of maybe spending so much time on WINE, prehaps a better investment is to work on fast Java Virtual Machines..
They are getting faster, in fact Sun plans to release JDK1.4 soon, and it is MUCH faster than JDK1.3.
Now, once Java is comparable fast to native applications, (which in some situations it already is), developers can start writing applications in Java commercially.
Once this happens, any OS that supports Java can run those applications. Example:
Lets say some day down the line, 20% of the programs you can purchase in the store is written in Java.. well, that means ANY operating system can run those programs if they elect to run the OPEN java specs.
So in summary, the true way to open up the opearting system market is to get developers to use Java.
The problem with some of these anti-MS advocats is that they think they can take over the market in one fell swoop.
You're forgetting, or failing to mention, that people advocate GNU/Linux for other reasons than toppling Microsoft. If software freedom is your goal, then migrating proprietary software from one OS to another doesn't really accomplish a thing.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
I know that this kind of post has zero technical or business argument (ok, maybe it has a business argument), but I have to say it because it seems to vivid to me.
The CEO of the Lindows company looks like a complete ego maniac. One of the main tabs on the web site is "Michael's Minute". On the FAQ page, the second question is "Who is being Lindos.com?" and then it goes in to a tirade about the CEO, describing him using the word "visionary".
I suppose I might not care, but it reminds me of previos ventures that I have participated in where an individuals ego is the driving business force. This kind of business model does not lend itself to delivering reliable software since the focus ends up being to get the CEO's name in to the newspaper. Who knows, maybe this guy has more experience and is more sensible (he apparently founded Mp3.com - how did they do?), but the web site seems like it's trying too hard.
The problem is "most people don't care". Add to that, that I care, but I've got all these PCs with Windows already running fine (well as good as we all know it does), and to make the jump to Linux, I've got this huge f'in unknown facing me. I need to repartition my drive, I've got to run this installer, I've got to f'in dig around in different mysterious software packages. Sorry. I've got a copy of Red Hat gathering dust. And pleeze don't tell me "Oh it's not that bad." I can same the same about the major abdominal surgery I had six weeks ago... because it's all behind me.
If I saw a comercial distribution that said "We make it easy to switch. Put our disk in and in 30 minutes you'll have Linux running and optimized, without disturbing your Windows environment." I'd be on that like a buzzard on a gut wagon.
DUH!!
Edith Keeler Must Die
..will we be able to run Lindows on FreeBSD to add another layer of emuation ^_^
Openness and mass compatibility is simply nice for users. I don't see it as a world domination scheme, and nor do I care. It's nice for me, the user, to be able to run Windows stuff without rebooting.
That's all I really care about.
Remember, Linux's main strength is that it is a solid, free framework. People who want that will use it, both on the developer and user side.
Those who wish to rule the world with it can sit in their bunkers with their Mr. Bigglesworths and scheme. I wish them all the best- I love distributed world conquest. They might even win.
I'll just do what I do.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Of course we do. Just think about it. If a console system somehow played games from the PS2, GameCube, XBox, Super Nintendo, Genesis, and ROMs downloaded off the internet for any of those systems AND Mame... wouldn't you buy it? If an HDTV set somehow came with built-in VHS player and a built-in DVD player that could play VCDs, any music format you wanted on a CD or CD-R, AND burn both CDs, CD-Rs, and DVDs, including off another DVD... wouldn't you buy it? Of course you would. These things would do anything, take up less space than several different consoles/players, be much easier to setup, and would probably cost less.
The point? The thing that does everything, does it right, and does it at an acceptable price is the best thing out there. If Linux could run just about any program you wanted, no matter what operating system it was originally meant for, it would be the perfect operating system. It would be the operating system equivalent to a Swiss Army Knife, and would be a perfect alternative to the system that most computer users have to put up with now: Use Windows alone or have Windows on one partition and Linux on the other. Because of the limitations of work, school, and gaming, most people NEED to use some Windows programs. To make it more accessable to those people, Linux should definitely run Windows programs, and if possible flawlessly.
Forgive me of being semantically in error. I am not a native speaker and I don't have a degree in English. Perhaps I should clarify my point a bit:
With the word 'commercial' I ment that unless someone gets a change of heart, there will be no free and legal way to get Lindows. There will be a price tag. Even with most modern commercial distributions, (RedHat, Mandrake etc.) there is a 'free download'-option included. And being non-free (if that is the right word) means that critical parts of Lindows, if not all, will be closed source.
And what comes to me thinking that "one single proprietary piece of software magically `taints' every other free / open source part", I didn't say that and didn't mean to give that impression.
// Ego sum Nucivorax, me clamare audi.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
void fakeclass::testfunc(int) //line
//line
//line
//line
{
cout "I can use many lines to do very little"
}
As I was reading the faqs on the lindows.com, a thought came to me. It seems to me like Michael and the rest of the crew aren't striving to make a linux os that also runs Windows apps moderately well. In fact, instead of comparing this os to Linux w/ WINE, I would compare it more to OS X. It seems like he's trying to build a new operating system, based on a Linux Kernel. With these extra 10 million lines of code, there has to be a little something extra than some sort of buggy emulator. It seems more like a fundamental rewrite of how one would approaching running Windows apps on Linux. But instead of Mac sitting on top of Darwin, it's Windows sitting on top of Linux. Just like OS X can run photoshop (something designed around Mac) or various unix/linux programs, Lindows can run Office (something designed around Windows) and various unix/linux programs.
For anyone who can't see what I'm trying to get at, screw you for not being able to read my mind. Otherwise, I'm probably just full of it...
Do we really want to perpetuate the use of Windows software on a linux platform?
So you don't want me to run my Windows software on Linux? You WANT me to use Windows instead??? I don't get it. If you want to increase the Linux user base, you gotta allow for new people coming over, and for those new people to want to be able to use some of their favorite aps. So what if its on Lindows? I'd think that anything != Microsoft == Good or at least better. And besides, not all Windows software is Microsoft software. Think of the dozens of games made for Windows that have yet to be ported over to Linux. And what about wine? Doesn't it encourage the same thing??
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Tons of people use windows for office and games, and Linux for most else. From what I hear around town, the idea here is to allow people who are curious about Linux but not brave or knowledgeable enough for drive whacking to try it.
Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.
Wroot
You're forgetting, or failing to mention, that people advocate GNU/Linux for other reasons than toppling Microsoft. If software freedom is your goal, then migrating proprietary software from one OS to another doesn't really accomplish a thing.
....
.... except bring a larger market share to a free OS. I think it's obviously naive to think that the software industry as a whole will just keel over and start giving its software away.
Maybe in the future there will be no 'software industry', but I think exactly the opposite will happen: the software industry will only get larger. Proprietary software has a right to exist and people deserve to get paid for their work.
If the Linux community at least supports a way for it to exist in the OS (which is does, but it often frowns upon non-free software), maybe proprietary software and open source software will compete in an equal market (for once) and Linux will be brought to the masses because of the availability of more software. Wouldn't that be interesting
But the whole thing about software freedom is interesting as well. Should a free OS run non-free software? Sure, why not? The OS is still free. Let's let the market dictate success or failure of a piece of software instead of having this endless debate on freedom. If people want free software, they'll choose it on its merits.
----- rL
Hmmm, let's see. The problem with Win4lin is that IT REQUIRES ONE TO OWN WINDOZE. You STILL must purchase windoze, register windoze, feed the Beast, serve the monopoly. If EVERYONE used Win4Lin, Gates would be happy as a clam because it effectively does the same thing for him and M$ as everyone using just straight windoze. The money and propriatory software and APIs are still "accepted" as "standards".
Win4lin and VMWare are ONLY useful for those who own or have windoze by other means (ahem). It doesn't do anything to eliminate or reduce the monopoly power and abuse of M$. It serves to perpetuate it.
Wine, on the other hand, has the potential to HURT M$ and its monopoly hold on the desktop. ONLY Wine is set for this. It doesn't require windoze. No one need purchase or acquire by other means (ahem) windoze. This directly impacts negatively on M$. The more successful Wine is, the better. M$ gets hit, money is saved (a GREAT deal of wasted, unethically obtained money).
It is FAR better to not have to pay M$ a dime than to STILL have to purchase their crapOS. It is far more satisfactory on an emotional level too to thumb your nose at Gates and say "Na-na! I am running windoze software without owning or paying for windoze! Na-na! I don't NEED you!."
Wine (and Lindows, if it actually turns out to be more than vapor...like Freedows) is the ONLY viable future means to use the software you want from the windoze world without feeding the Beast money.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Cheers for Lindows, but we should keep our eyes on the ball and support legal remedies with letters/e-mail and with votes. Otherwise you get the image of a bunch of programmers slaving away at something (like Wine) that never quite matures. It's always struck me that programmers, who love systems as few do, show disdain for the legal and political systems.
Microsoft's lock-in of customers and developers is based solely on its illegal monopoly. In the plainest possible terms, the lock-in is a violation of the rights of software customers and competitors. Customes suffer through reduced innovation and competition by software providers. Competitors suffer because Microsoft uses the Windows/Office fortress to terrorize the entire software community.
Microsoft's illegal behavior results in great harm, and that harm can only be stopped and remedied through legal and regulatory means. If Lindows and Wine manage to capture any important portion of the desktop, it will be ten years out. (Heck, Windows XP won't even capture the desktop completely for four or five years!)
I personally don't feel like waiting ten years for a maybe. I support anyone who supports strong sanctions against the Microsoft monopoly. I don't buy Microsoft unless I have to. (I wouldn't have an XBox in my house if they were giving them away.)
Just to respond with the same objectiveness....
The Wright Brothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the first not to crash.
Actually, there is evidence that some ancient civilizations had dirigables of some sort, or other hot-air balloon type systems.
And, Orvill Wright was killed in the first fatal plane crash...
Proprietary software has a right to exist and people deserve to get paid for their work.
Fiat doesn't make it so. Sorry, but pick any economic theory you like; none of them say you "deserve" to get paid for your work. If I collect a bunch of sticks and buy a bunch of yarn and busy myself making god's eyes twelve hourse a day, do I "deserve" to get paid for it? Of course that's nonsense.
Personally, I prefer the capitalist take on this issue. I'd like to let the market decide what the effort that goes into programming is worth. And I'd like the market to decide what the value of mass producing digital content is worth. But we don't get to see that happen, because these industries are propped up by government regulations that circumvent the proper operation of the market.
If people want free software, they'll choose it on its merits.
Not necessarily, given the current anti-competitive market in which it has to compete. Moreover, if you consider freedom in and of itself the most important "merit", your statement evaporates in a tautology.
I would love to see the "market dictate succcess or failure of a piece of software". Not the US patent office. Not the monopoly owners of copyrighted proprietary de-facto standards.
Given the sordid state of the software industry, it's about time we do away with notion that proprietary software deserves a seat at the table. The only reason it has a seat at all is because we, as a society, invited it. It's time for the boot.
And let's never stop having this "endless debate on freedom".
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Umm, good idea. Problem is, it exists already. It is called Win XP. Add in the fact that almost every Linux app has a free Windows equivilent and that windows has thousands of apps which have no equal on Linux.
Any equivilent Gnome or KDE based Linux setup is way slower than win xp on the same hardware. In the past the major thorn in the side of Linux was lack of hardware support. The linux community has doen a fantastic job of overcoming this hurdle, but now they have another major hurdle:usability, consistency and interface.
KDE and Gnome have made great strides in the usability department. These advances unfortunately have been made at the expense of performance In order to get people to switch from windows, KDE and or Gnome have to be better and faster than windows.
The interface of KDE is fantastic and is professional enough looking to satisfy most corporate demands. the problem is, there is too much diversity in widnows managers with different interfaces which are different enough to force new employees to have to learn the new interface. Anyone who has used a post 3.1 version of windows can easily use any other version without having to learn a new interface. The Fisher Price look of Win XP can be changed to look exactly like win 9x. A new employee needs no additional training to use any of the windows machines.
Consistency of the interface is important for the users, but consistency of the actual system is important for the admins. No two linux distros dump all the files in the same place. With windows you knopw where everything is as well as all the configuration tools.
I had a turbo linux disk that I decided to play around with. Installed no problem, but when it came to do basic configuration, LinuxConf was no where to be found. Of course I could have spent days looking for everything and manually editing all the files, but I do not want to. I have better things to do with my time.
Anyway my point is that any windows emulation on Linux is not going to solve the problems Linux faces getting on the desktops of corporate evironments.
What kind of comment is this? Software is software, and right now some of the new, great software is a heck of a lot easier to write for the Windows platform.
:o) can be sometimes be terrible extermist advocates. Paying for software at all? Not OpenSource?
I'm a software developer and I strongly disagree at this point, if you're pointing at MS visual C++. The win32 API is one of the dirtiest and most unhandy API's I've worked with so far. For what I touched in the past only MSDOS beated it with it's terminate-stay-resitent-crap.
Personally I find QT/KDE a far more intuative and an easier API.
Well I asumeed here you refered to lowlevel and middle software. If you're doing with VB you're fine of with development time. But having (commercially) programmed VB applications in the past I tell you it's a horror to get them run across different windows systems. When I developed it it ran fine under win95. THen win98, did it run? No the printer API suddendly behaves differntly. Then they moved to Win2000, did it run? No again the API changed somewhat in behaviour.
You're right if programming targeted toward the market. If I today have to programm an end user application I want to sell, windows would still be my selection. Why? Since most users use it. 2nd reson? Because linux users (like me
(However if I want to build today a server, Linux is my selection, it's cheaper and I personally find it far more reliable (you need only the knowhow you've to aquire only once) If I want to build a high end embedded system Linux is my selection. I don't have to pay royality licenses, I have all the source, I can freely modify it, it has less overhead (kernel can be smaller than 500K). writing hardware drivers for it is tousend times more easier than win95/NT/2000/XP. If I would sell a complete "solution" I would also sell my application together with linux software. But still my Apps would proparly be closed source.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
What this discussion has come down to is mostly the linux users saying how MS monopoly sucks so forth. Personally I love the office 2k products. They're easy to use and they do what I want them to do. Star office I'm sorry to say is a product that doesn't come anywhere near office. It's incredibly slow to load up(I love how my mouse crawls as i load up any component within star). On to topic: Lindoze in my opinion is a waste of code.. for heaven sakes 10 million lines of code. I might as well partition a drive and run windows 2k on it... I recall lilo being able to dual boot :) But seriously instead of wasting 10 million lines of code to do somethign that windows can do better why not invest that 10 million lines into cooler software for linux.
Get the best of both worlds... I'd say yer lying if you were to tell me that Windows isn't one of the easiest operating systems to use. Along with the fact that it has one of the most complete libraries of software. Linux is a good OS.. but it still mainly for enthusiasts. Unless you really know what yer doing a linux box isn't too fun to set up..
Looks like their trying to fight fire with fire, using Microsoft's own tactics against them. This is a bad move in my opinion. Microsoft will typically buy up a competitor's technology or simply take up open technologies like Kerberos. The Linux movement doesn't have the resources to fight this way, it'll take ten times the resources to reverse engineer what they need instead of buying it up. This poster is correct in saying to keep the focus on Linux. Plus, why adopt Microsoft's questionable ethics?
As Linus did with UNIX, as the "clone wars" (I'm telling you, that would've been such a better name) of the 80's did with the IBM-PC, Lindows may be able to accomplish with Windows. As the car analogy comes back into play, all cars run off of gas, but have different features. Some people run electric/solar powered cars for the whole ideal (think linux). Then there are most of the people who run off of regular gas powered cars (think windows), they don't have time to put up with the inconveniences that the other cars offer but would most likely love the advantages of them as well. Then you see the hybrid cars (think Lindows), these are the only cars that have a chance of penetrating the market with the idea that slowly people can make the transition to fully non gas powered technology. Many of us here do use Linux because it offers us many benefits and we can afford to put in the time to reap the benefits of the OS. Most people just don't have the time to put in or don't see the advantages without ever using it. Lindows is exactly what this market needs to put Microsoft out of the picture as the sole distributor of Windows (sounds funny, but it makes as much sense to me as Intel and AMD both releasing x86 processors). Why will or why should people choose Lindows? Because it offers them more. If you have all the base options and give a little more, people like that. Just look at SUV's :)
Yep, Win4Lin's so great that there are only a handfull of employees left. One of the original developers (with the product for the past 15 years or so) was fired this year due to budget cuts: you cannot live on VC forever. That guy knew a lot about the workings of Win4Lin. I really don't see much revolutionary new stuff coming down the pipe in his absence.
Have you seen any new products from NeTraverse since 3.0? No. It's because there are few developers left: it's hard to make money selling software for Linux since a lot of people want something for nothing. "Free" beer is what Linux users are used to.
Wine will trash Win4Lin in the long run. Considering that Win4Lin only runs up to 95/98 (with some really ugly rework necessary to handle Windows ME), it's time the whole product is sunsetted.
VMWare is easily the best of the lot of the products you mentioned. You will never see Win4Lin running XP: it's truly impossible due to XP's architecture.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Personally, I would love to be able to ditch Windows. The problem is that I have literally thousands of dollars worth of software that won't run on another OS. You know expensive stuff, Photoshop, Macromedia Director, Office Pro, to name a few. If Lindows will run those programs, I certainly would give it try. As it stands now, I see little alternative to Windows unless I happen to win the lottery, marry extremely well, or decide that food and housing aren't really necessary. I can afford to replace an operating system, or upgrade, but to replace the software, that's a different story.
- Robert
WebMaster:
BinFeeds
XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but
...but it isn't going to work. History has shown that people who try to compete with Microsoft on the operating system front, particularly those who try to handle Windows emulation, wind up shafted. Ever heard of something called DR-DOS? No? OS/2? Thought so. We can get excited about an OS that allegedly runs Windows apps natively on x86 hardware, but it isn't going to fly, for several reasons.
First, the majority of PC owners are not going to run out and by a new operating system to put on their computers. They already have one. One deciding trait in human psychology is laziness: if it works, don't mess with it.
Second, Microsoft. Microsoft has shown a tendency to change the Windows API at the drop of a hat if it thinks it is losing market share. They did it to OS/2 and WordPerfect with Windows 95. They did it to DR-DOS with Windows 3.x. It may be anti-competitive. It may be unfair business practices. In Microsoft's world, it's simply business as usual.
Finally, with yet another closed-source product, you don't have any real advantages to offset the previously mentioned disadvantages.
Oh yes...and OEM PC manufacturers won't install this because they are too closely tied to Microsoft....
What is your Slash Rating?
So what? In 24 hours 80,000 people had purchased SuSE 7.0 last year. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/axv-25.08.00-0 02/
2. I have a machine with a spottly supported sound card. I had to download some source, extract it, compile it, and build it into my kernel.
Because you choose not to mention what soundcard, this cannot be verified.
Unlike you I do mention my hardware: - A ASUS K7V mobo with VIA KX133 chipset with onboard sound
- A Netgear networking card - A Matrox G400
SuSE 7.1 and 7.3 detected all of the above, Windows 98 and ME detected none of the above. (Had to feed driver CDs/floppies)
And in Linux all works flawlessly, in Windows I had a Bluescreen (in 98, 98SE and ME) before shutdown (so that checkdisk ran on every bootup). I had to install a new chipset driver off the net to get rid of the bluescreens.
Since your problem with this strange nameless soundcard seems to be related to the kernel and there was a patch, it should work with the standard kernel by now.
No OS will work with unuspported hardware and no PC-maker will sell unsupported hardware. (And BTW, Linux has better hardware-support than WinXP because they changed the driver-model again)
3. You mention that in real-life that it is easier to setup a workplace with Linux. I disagree strongly. A good IT person with some Windows experience can easily automate the deployment of any number of machines - complete with applications, patches, and every setting pre-customized for the end user.
You are switching topics. First you talk about the poor poor end users, then all of the sudden you talk about mass-deployment.
You Linux-bashers should make up your mind.
But OK, I'll comment on this other topic, too:
Debian can be adequately mass-deployed via apt-get and SuSE has recently released a tool for it (ALICE).
4. You mention that Wine isn't very useful today. I agree. However, it is useful for a number of applications. My original point was that it is possible to make Win32 applications run under Linux.
Possible does not mean usable for a large group of users.
I consider Wine ready for the masses as soon as it runs all apps with some rare exceptions and when it is integrated with the distributions.
To compete on the OEM level, Linux/Non-MS OS's will have to (a) save them the bulk of that 10%-20%, (b) provide all the same features, (c) provide excellent compatibility, and (d) provide opportunity for additional and continuing revenue to the OEM.
a: Yes.
b: Yes.
c: No. That's why we need Wine.
d: Don't know what you mean.
Linux can save them money; however, the question is how much would Linux cost to distrubte?
The same as Windows (support, custimization) minus license costs.
On Windows, the PC-makers have to do the support, remember?
The main point is this: to get that 10% - 20% increase in revenue may well require more work, upfront cost, and risk than most OEMs are willing to accept.
It's not 10% to 20% more revenue, it's 10 to 20% less costs.
Anyway, it's only risky when they have to fear Microsoft, otherwise there is no risk in offering Linux (or no OS at all) as an option.
In Germany Vobis was the biggest PC-maker in the early 90s. Vobis decided to sell PCs with OS/2 preinstalled and was punished by Microsoft with "delivery problems" and higher license prices. That nearly drove them out of business.
Of course the PC-makers remember that and are afraid of Microsoft. That's why I think it will be smaller PC-makers first preinstalling Linux. Anyway, Linux becomes more and more tempting for PC-makers, it's just a matter of time.
applications I wrote against Windows 95 operate with 100% binary compatibility with Windows XP and everything in between. Applications written against KDE 1.0 and under are binary incompatible, and even require substantial rewrites, with newer versions of KDE. That's not a good feature.
Wrong, it's a good feature. Most if not all distributions provide the KDE1-libs so that KDE1 apps still run without any problems.
However this legacy support is easily dropped and is not slowing down the system forever.
I'll have to check that out. Thanks for the tip.
if you consider freedom in and of itself the most important "merit",
That's a very big if. Most people want software to work. It can be 100% free but if it doesn't do what you want it to then it is worthless - software is a tool, not a religion.
Mmmmmmm
I'm not sure why your posting was rated as "funny," because it's right on the money.
Take my mother. (Please! No, not really, but I couldn't resist.) A few years back, she wanted a computer. I, being the evil scum that I am, concluded that she would do better on the Mac than on Windows 95. I was right. She's had a couple of PowerBooks. She does a lot. She uses email (not through AOL), can get to the web, does finances on Quicken, writes up test papers and letters, manages addresses, and uses the spreadsheet. She is, if anything, above average as a home user. Every time I visit her, she has questions for me, usually trivial matters, and she's very afraid of making changes. (I bought her a Palm, and she was afraid to synchronize it, because she didn't want to "break anything.")
So, a few months ago she calls to say that some of her games aren't working. A conversation like the following ensues:
I: What changed?
She: I had to upgrade Quicken.
I: Just Quicken? Was there anything else?
She: Yeah, I had to get another number.
I: Another number?
She: Yeah, wait a minute. Here it is. 9.1.
I: You installed a major operating system upgrade without calling me first? That can cause a lot of stuff to break!
She: That's what I'm finding out.
People who are not geeks or computer scientists simply do not know what an operating system is. A minority of them know the phrase "operating system," but it has no more intrinsic meaning to them than "geegaw" or "rang deedio." If they know at all about it, they just know that it has to be there and has to work.
Nor should they, in an ideal world. The whole role of an operating system is to facilitate use of the computer and not get in the way. In the user model the operating system is the computer is the genie behind the screen. When they buy a computer, they buy a computer, and everything they get in the box that says "computer" is the computer. They may understand keyboard, monitor, and mouse as parts, but they don't understand, at all, that the OS is a fungible part of the system. There may be a disc, but they ignore it until something breaks.
The same thing is true of user interfaces. Well-meaning people like Jef Raskin and Donald Norman, as well as not-so-well-meaning people like Alan Cooper have been advocating for clean user interfaces that are invisible to the user for years. They're right, from a technical standpoint. They're all of them totally wrong when they try to explain why user interfaces are bad or how to make them better. The reason that user interfaces are not as good as they are is that the more invisible a component is, the less people are even aware of it when making purchase decisions. As a result, while really terrible user interfaces may result in some bad word-of-mouth, really good interfaces also suffer, because by definition, most people don't perceive them as elements. Beyond a certain level of frustration, market forces don't work on user interfaces and may even work against good ones, because mediocre interfaces have more visible features.
Sorry... This seems very vaporous to me.... The only thing keeping it from being *really* *freaking* *smelly* vapor is the fact that the company is privately held, which means that no third-party stockholders are going to get nailed when it's realized there's no technology here at all.
.dot bomb late for the party.
They're claiming a release date of December 2001, yet they don't even have any screenshots, downloads, betas, or *ANYTHING* else.
What's the argument here... As far as i'm concerned, this is obviously another
When MS want to enter a new market the first thing they do is be compatible.
Windows 95 was compatible with Novell. Old versions of Office where compatible with all known word processors. IE supported Java...
Only when they have a very wide market share they step in and decide which standards are Microsoft friendly and should be continued.
Lets learn from Microsoft, Linux needs to support windows apps if it wants to become mainstream. Let the masses run the pricy M$ Office on Linux, later on they will see Star-office does the job for free!
(Score:5, Whoring)
Wine works, but sometimes it works better with Microsoft DLLs. Not everything is completly ported yet, or even ported well. This will get fixed over time, but if you want to use certain areas, for example, OLE, then you need to keep that Win Distro.
See my journal, I write things there
I have not seen Lindows but have to say IF (note the big if) it works, it will be a major step forward for the PC computing platform.
Before my current job in a corporate IS environment, I worked for a couple of computer manufacturers. People who build computers are in essence, held hostage by M$. While you really can sell a computer w/o a M$ operating system, it does not do well in the market and probably won't for some time to some. This is too bad, because the mony these manufacturers have to pay Microsoft comes directly out of your pockets.
People demand that their home computers run the same software that their office computers run. This way they can do office work at home, they only need to learn one program, and in many cases, their employer provides their home software. Businesses use M$ products because their business partners and associates use M$ software and using the same software guarantees compatibility.
While I will not argure that some of this logic is flawed, it is what is happening and why.
If a product, like Lindows were to come along and assure compaibility but be able to reduce the manufacturers cost by up to $50.00 per computer they would either switch to it or make it available as an option and would pass on most or all of the savings to the customer. They would have to to keep their position in the market place.
After enough execuitives have it at home, it will find its way into the office. Businesses with multiple computers can save a lot of money IF (there is the big if again) it is stable, easy to use, has no extra support costs, and is of course cheaper to start with.
When MS is finaly beat, this is how it will happen. Mark my words.
This reminds me of the Freedows project. It's odd that, after years of hype for Freedows (an os that would run MacOS, *nix, Windows, other) programs, parallel to each other and at the same time, using one microkernel, their website has now become a pr0n gateway. Original concept here.
Fiat doesn't make it so. Sorry, but pick any economic theory you like; none of them say you "deserve" to get paid for your work. If I collect a bunch of sticks and buy a bunch of yarn and busy myself making god's eyes twelve hourse a day, do I "deserve" to get paid for it? Of course that's nonsense.
This isn't what the previous poster meant. What he meant is this: If I work 12 hours a day making god's eyes out of sticks and yarn, I have the right to sell them for $50/each. You have the right to either buy them or ignore them. In no way are your rights threatened by my activity.
At this point, you are going to counter me with the "software is different" argument, but we both know it doesn't wash. In both cases the physical material involved (sticks and yarn or CD's and cardboard) is minimal. The labor and time is the primary component of the product.
When you give proprietary software the "boot", you are essentially barging into my house and saying what I can do with my sticks and yarn, and dictating how I relate to my neighbors.
That is why proprietary software has, and must continue to maintain its right to exist. It is also why the Free Software movement is possibly the greatest threat to liberty in the new century.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Som...um...we shouldn't have the right to give out time and money away, because it hurts people who choose to sell it? Well, let's start by stopping Habitates for Humanity (stealing from legit builders), Amnesty Internation (hey, they could always pay people to lobby for them), the ACLU (people should just buy their own lawyers), etc.
Or is it only wrong, in your fantasty world, for software to be worked on for 'charity' (Which, often, isn't that charitable. You fix what you use. Giving it away after you've fixed it already isn't that amazing a feat.)
You, personally, may feel threatened, but I can give away sticks and yarn all I want, and you know what? They're going to stop buying them from you. And I don't care, because I like doing it.
And no one mentioned taking away anyone's right to make and sell software. He simply said it was a stupid thing for society to be putting up with, and it's time they said 'Hey, why am I even thinking about paying money for this crap?'. Society as a whole has decided, for example, it will not pay for owning horse drawn carriages. That's not a threat to any liberties, it's just how society is.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Remember that story a few years back about how someone breeched security at Microsoft (wow, how'd THAT happen?) and gained access to their systems? Remember how they said that none of their Windows code was compromised?
...yep, that's right. They lied again.
[insert witty comment here]
No. Unlike RMS, I have no desire to make publishing software under a particular license illegal just because I don't like the license. Let me clarify myself. Joe Blow kernel hacker doesn't threaten me, not at all. What threatens me is RMS's statement to the effect that he can't support the "right to release under any license" espoused by O'Reilly et. al.
When I speak of the Free Software movement, I am speaking of the radical element that has an agenda to make it illegal to write proprietary software, to wrest source code from Microsoft by government force, etc. OTOH, if the market determines that software should be free, I am just fine with that. The carriage analogy is a good one.
As for the PP not wanting to take away my rights, I doubt that he wouuld hesitate to vote for a representative who might sponsor a bill to regulate the software industry, with a long term view towards socializing it. This is what has me afraid, because the Republicans are way behind the curve on this one. Most of them don't even know what the FSF is. They need to be mobilized.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Before you correct me, let me clarify myself yet again. Yes, I'm sure many Republicans voted for the DMCA and other "pro IP" bills. This is not classical Republican politics, it's special interest politics. They vote for that crap because, to put it bluntly, they are paid. I think I'm already on record as being opposed to such polarizing acts as the DMCA. In the long run they are actually anti-IP because they lend credance to the AIP movement. OK, no more Saturday night posts...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"If I collect a bunch of sticks and buy a bunch of yarn and busy myself making god's eyes twelve hourse a day, do I "deserve" to get paid for it?"
Well you've certainly confused the issue by taking a very anal approach to reading comprehension.
The point was obviously that you DON'T have the right to use the other guys work without asking permission. It is quite possible the granting of permission may be commiserate with a payment of sorts, in fact in a capitalist society it usually is.
Yes, let the market decide. But the market is not supposed to involve coercion.
The GNU organization stands for coercion, which is a threat to liberty.
I quote: "Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned."
That is a quote from the GNU Manifesto, it goes on further to rail against people who ask money for their work and how these people shall be outlawed as well.
Yes, let the market decide. But the market is not supposed to involve coercion.
My thoughts exactly. Which is why I am against software patents and copyrights.
Are going to tell me that those institutions don't constitute coercion? Do you must believe that you have a natural right of ownership to the output of your brain's machinations? I.E. - that these laws simply institutionalize what we all know is good and holy?
BTW, don't quote me. These words belong to me.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Was word perfect packed in with Windows? Nope.
Was Netscape packed in with Windows? Nope.
As a rule Microsoft should be FORCED to pack in competitors software with every version of software of their own that they pack in.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Lindows eh? How about Licrosoft ? Or wait.. I have a better idea how about LacOS ? (read as Lack OS) or, on a second thought let's get more personal.. how about luser/lassword (read as loser's last word) ? You can laugh.. it's funny.
Do you or do you not think that Windows will be around in the future?
That was answered in the first post of mine.
More specificly, proprietary software platforms will become niche players, just like proprietary hardware platforms are becoming right now.
You assume that I am Linux basher.
You NEVER bring examples and just spread FUD. If you are no Linux basher, you surely post like one.
You said it would be terrible if Wine can't emulate the latest-greatest, I pointed out that a 2 year-lag would be more than enough - no response.
You said that in Linux you have to use the CLI all the time but even after several times I could not get an example from you.
What exactly is the difference between you and a Linux-basher?
I merely contend that your assement that Linux will somehow quickly destroy Windows if only apps would run and OEM's are allowed to distribute it is wrong. The DOJ settlement will end MS's ability to retaliate against OEM's.
I hope so, but I doubt it. Maybe the EU will be more effective, though.
Lindows will soon be released. Wine gets better all the time. Care to make a wager about when the end of Windows will be?
OK, that's a difficult question.
I would guess that within 5 or 6 years a lot of OEMs will preinstall Linux and Linux will reach a significant desktop marketshare (> 25%)
After that, the process will accelerate and Windows will be a legacy system within another 5 years.
Microsoft has not the manpower to write drivers for all peripherals like OSS can easily do.
Microsoft-fans always point out how powerful and great Microsoft is. In the real world their huge development capacities are DWARFED by the OSS community.
Once the iron grip on the OEMs is broken, they will never get it back.
Care to wager how long it will take for hundreds of millions of computers to migrate to a non-Windows OS?
As I've already pointed out, it will be on new PCs.
You are wrong. Your premise is wrong.
It's pretty lame. I bring examples and arguments all the time and the best you come up with is this.
Fact is that IN THE WHOLE THREAD you did not bring one single real world example to reinforce your arguments.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's because RMS is completely insane. Free software owes him a debt, but he's completely insane. When I speak of the Free Software movement, I am speaking of the radical element that has an agenda to make it illegal to write proprietary software, to wrest source code from Microsoft by government force, etc. OTOH, if the market determines that software should be free, I am just fine with that. The carriage analogy is a good one.
Well, okay, but that wasn't what the comment you were replying to wanted. It just wanted people to wake up and realize what they were paying for.
As for the PP not wanting to take away my rights, I doubt that he wouuld hesitate to vote for a representative who might sponsor a bill to regulate the software industry, with a long term view towards socializing it. This is what has me afraid, because the Republicans are way behind the curve on this one. Most of them don't even know what the FSF is. They need to be mobilized.
I did read you correction, and I suspect the political party you want is 'Libertarian'. ;)
But worrying congress is going to do something to destroy MS is crazy, especially under the current administration. ;)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
>My thoughts exactly. Which is why I am against
>software patents and copyrights.
I'm not against copyrights, I'm only against the way copyrights are done today.
Our constitution says that Congress has the power:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
If a copyright does not promote the progress of science (or art), it should be rendered invalid. It's also intended to be a "limited time(s)", and in the computer industry, 5 years is an Epoch, not a limited time- they ought to expire after a couple of years.
>Are going to tell me that those institutions
>don't constitute coercion?
>Do you must believe
>that you have a natural right of ownership to
>the output of your brain's machinations?
I think that people ought to be credited with their own ideas, but again, after a period of time it should cease belonging solely to them.
>That is why proprietary software has, and must
>continue to maintain its right to exist. It is
>also why the Free Software movement is possibly
>the greatest threat to liberty in the new
>century.
That last remark is absurd.
Proprietary software ought to exist only when people wish to release, distribute or otherwise use it. If everyone decided to stop using it on their own, they shouldn't be forced to use it, any more than people shouldn't be forced to use "open" or "free" software.
The "Free Software" movement has elements within it that appear to want to forcibly do away with closed software. But it's no different from the people who want to do away with "free software".
-Then run Windows!!
-No OS can run Windows apps better than Windows itself.
How odd... and untrue. Recently, I tried playing a DiVX on my Win98 system. It wouldnt. "Cannot play source destination" or some other crap. Oddly, that same DiVX plays under OS/2, using WarpMedia - which uses the same Win9X codec to decode the DiVX
Looks like another OS did better there.
Then, there are the DiVX's that do play on both (which is every other one I have tried so far to be fair to Win9X...). I have the Warp system set at 1024x768. The Win system set at 640x480. I play 640x### DiVX's since it requires no scaling (and thus no extra CPU power) under Win98. Win98 manages a whopping 1-2 frames a second. Warp, scaling to full screen 1024x768, manages 30-50fps. At standard size, it can handle as high as 100fps. Leaving it synchronizing the video and audio thus results in virtually perfect playback.
Yeah, maybe a low end PII isnt what a DiVX "should" be played on - but that is only due to defficiencies in Windows... since OS/2 can obviously handle it - using the Windows DiVX codec no less!.
To play the same DiVX under Windows 98, I need to put the resolution to "1/2" (which is really 1/4 if you do the math) and manage a whopping 10 fps. Whoppee!! It turns my PII into a 486 - which is what OS/2 needs to run so pathetically playing a DiVX.
OS/2 without the nifty drivers that come with the video cards, holds its own on games like Quake II and III and newer games as well and has beaten 2K in comparisons - again, using Odin. 80-100fps on the same hardware for OS/2.
As parts of Project Odin for OS/2 and eComStation are from Wine, and the rest written from the ground up for OS/2, I'd presume that *nix users would "suffer" similar speed improvements in a number of areas as well. Yeah, some things are slower, but by and large, many are far faster - and as the Wine and Odin code progress, I can truly see Linux and OS/2 running most if not all Win apps better and faster than WinAnything. (Beating WinXP is easy as it is by far the slowest release yet... IBM Labs has a nice comparison showing it for networking. Linux thrashes it. Win2K beats it - though barely).
Sorry, but from running Win2K, XP, Win98, Linux and OS/2, I can tell you, you are very wrong. I've got plenty of identical hardware to do the tests on.
Robert
WebMaster:
BinFeeds
XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but
"Are going to tell me that those institutions don't constitute coercion? "
Yes, they don't involve coercion.
You have a choice, you can buy the product or not buy the product.
Copyrights and patents protect the creator from you stealing their hard efforts without just compensation.
"BTW, don't quote me. These words belong to me."
Isn't that hypocritical? Besides under fair use doctrine, I'm allowed to quote you.
It appears the one trying to coerce, is yourself.
You know what really chaps my hide? The fact that people seem to take this stuff as if it mattered.
The FSF is a great organization - they provide high quality software for 'free(dom)', and provide licenses and basic guidelines for joe blow software hacker to use in his own projects.
IF HE CHOOSES. People choose the GNU Public License because it fits their goal of a good software license for their projects. Not because of RMS's philosophies.
It would be really nice if people would focus on the GNU *PROJECT* and less on the GNU *PHILOSOPHY*.
Those who embrace it, good for them. Those who don't, take advantage of a good idea and use the hard work of a collective of people to further your own goals, which obviously would be to release your software to tbe public in a limited (yes, limited) fashion.
Nothing requires you to concede to the ideas of someone else. Proper thought encourages the critical analysis of SECTIONS of another persons thought and embracing those parts that you agree with, not the whole thing.
Just a few weeks ago, I tried the full version of Windows XP Professional. Okay... it looks pretty good, and has some good functions, but... it still is full of bugs. For example: think of the remote desktop function. One click and someone can take over your whole computer remotely. BUG!! After some 'looking around' in Windows XP, I decided to throw Windows in the trashcan.. Forever! Indeed, there are a lot of perfect applications for Windows, but only the idea of running Windows applications under a perfect Linux system already kills me. Daaaaaaaah!! So that will be no Lindows for me! I already hate the 'Start here' function in Redhat Linux! Just keep it simple! Just let me do the work, not the system!! That's why I will never use such a Linux OS... but that's just my opinion.
Personally, I prefer the capitalist take on this issue. I'd like to let the market decide what the effort that goes into programming is worth. And I'd like the market to decide what the value of mass producing digital content is worth. But we don't get to see that happen, because these industries are propped up by government regulations that circumvent the proper operation of the market.
;)
What I think you're saying is that Linux shouldn't allow proprietary software because the existence of which would use patents and be a detriment to free software.
I like the idea of sharing software ideas and not allowing ridiculous patents, but creating software is a lot of work, and people have to get paid somehow in order to survive (not forgetting that programmers/software designers are very educated people with student loans). If they are going to get paid, they have to be able to depend on the fact that their original (new) idea is protected, so some other company (or even free software) can come along and steal the idea.
I'm not saying that the current patent process is in any way fair, but there has to be some way of protecting business interests once a large sum of money is put down on someone's new bright idea to ensure someone else won't steal it and use it.
I know this is against free software ideals, but the idea that free software will dominate the world is almost ludicrous, only because I can't picture millions of current and future programmers and software designers working for absolutely nothing. I think it's fair to say that most free software writers (besides those hired by the likes of Red Hat et. al) have day jobs in the proprietary software industry. If it goes, how do these free software guys make a buck? As far as I'm concerned, it's Utopian and it will never happen in the near future.
What we need is something on an Internet time scale. A software 'patent' that lasts 3-5 years and after that the idea can be used by anyone. That amount of time is enough to get a good head start to profit on the idea, but still releases the idea to the public in a timely mannor.
I don't see any way around this copyright issue: - programmers need money to survive --> programmers need to get paid --> software needs to be bought by someone --> software contains orignal idea --> original idea can be protected.
In the end, proprietary software should (and will) exist on the Linux OS. Mixing this issue with the flawed software copyrighting system only confuses people. One endless argument at a time, please.
----- rL
They can be compared, but you are comparing a language to an Operating system. You can run java app x on os y (or W) but when its about installation you still need some OS specific code.
And won't they be surprised when they go to look for the latest "l337" animation
Macromedia, the maker of the Flash plugin, continues to support Netscape browsers. Yes, the AYBABTU Flash animation will still run in Mozilla.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I can type "Mozilla" in MSN Search and find it no problem at all.
But where did you come up with the term "Mozilla" or "Netscape" to search on?
In other words, when IE and MSN Explorer come with the computer, how are novice users supposed to know that other still-maintained browsers exist?
Will I retire or break 10K?
If you want to compare my side of things lets look at compilers. MSVC is fairly solid and optimizes well.
MSVC does not generate code for any non-x86 targets. What happens when you want to make an app that runs on Itanium? Intel's response: Use GCC.
GCC is the next in line competitor [I feel].
Factoid: Nintendo developers use GCC to compile code for the ARM7TDMI processor in the Game Boy Advance system.
Cygwin for example is a rather complete [minus an IDE] distribution that is gaining popularity.
"Minus an IDE"? What about Emacs? Or by IDE, do you mean dialog box designer? Those exist also.
Most MS development tools for example have color highlighted syntax
So does Emacs, with any of the popular .emacs files (such as Claude Anderson's) or .emacs generators.
popups for API syntax
Don't many users hate pop-ups and use Proxomitron to turn them off on the web? When I want to look up API syntax in Emacs, I pop up my own Info window (thank you very much) with C-x 2 C-h i, which is explained on the menus and in the tutorial.
Will I retire or break 10K?
There is nothing stopping you from making a new browser, make it bug free, secure, and sell it for say 15$ or something.
What about the fact that you can't make it faster to load than IE because IE is already loaded by the time the user sees Opera's icon? What about the fact that you can't replace MSHTML.dll (which other programs use) with your own browser?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Windows NT did a fantastic job with many Win16 apps. (They ran in sort of a VM so that NT was protected from their crap.)
NT also claimed to run DOS in a VM. However, the WinNT and Win2K VMs always had severe, reproducible problems with DOS support, such that DOS apps could crash the virtual machine. This is like a DOS app being able to damage the motherboard; the virtual machine should be engineered well enough that this doesn't happen.
DJGPP FAQ 3.3
Will I retire or break 10K?
I'm not sure I understand; you're saying Windows will continue to exist because of hardware compatability?
Windows will continue to exist as long as makers of popular video and sound cards refuse to release register-level documentation for their hardware or to release Linux drivers compatible with each major kernel version.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Most Photoshop users will never switch to the GIMP, not ever, for any reason.
Most Photoshop users who work in prepress use Photoshop for prepress, and all known methods of doing prepress on a computer are patented. Most Photoshop Elements users (PS Elements is PS minus prepress for only $100) don't. This situation will change 20 years after the day Photoshop introduced prepress, when the patents expire. Just thank God that Sonny Bono never got to patents.
You should not discount that in considering the future of Windows. It is the preferred development platform for games.
You don't need Windows to make a Game Boy Advance game. You need only a text editor (Emacs), a compiler (GCC targeted for ARM), a paint program (GIMP), a graphics converter (several exist), a compression tool (gzip), a build tool (GNU make), and a way to flash a cartridge or transfer a 256 KB netboot image. Software included with Linux or freely downloadable provides all of the above.
Will I retire or break 10K?
That was answered in the first post of mine.
If you have something important to say, say it above the 4 KB mark so that Slashdot doesn't cut it off "Read the rest of this comment..."
Will I retire or break 10K?
The only area that WinXP excells in is client/workstation software - which OS/2 can now (once again) boast it can run more client software than any other OS on the planet - period - using VirtualPC, allowing it to run Windows and Linux in virtual machines under OS/2 (or eComStation).
And the Mac can run OS/2 in its version of Virtual PC.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I see sooooooooo many posts by people about how everything MS does is wrong and that someone needs to break the stranglehold that MS has on the PC market.
Here it is.... along comes a solution....
What happens? It gets badmouthed.
You want to know why I tell people I know to use Windows and not Linux...... You tell me how to explain to my 85 year old grandmother how to use linux when she has trouble with the concept of a right vs left click. Then you explain why it is that she couldn't use that neat program about cats that she bought off of the shelf at Shoppers Drug Mart.
DAMMIT, sometimes some of you people REALLY piss me off. There is a place for ALL software. And if a distro of Linux that looks, runs and acts in all ways like Windows and will convert people from MS to it and have the security, stability of linux and the ability to use linux software.. Why wouldn't you support it?
What is it with all-or-nothing people?
If I have a choice between supporting endusers who run a microsoft os, and endusers who run lindows, which do you think I'd rather choose?
I don't see myself giving up redhat with fvwm2 for my own personal use anytime soon, but I do plan to evaluate the preview release of lindows as soon as its made available, because I would love to be able to recommend it to my boss's boss for a big on-campus usage push. He was just asking about how we should satisfy the cries for more linux support on campus the other day.
BTW, if wine isn't GPL'd, and perhaps even if it is, I'd lay odds that the lindows folks just grabbed wine and banged on it a bit to make it run a few more applications. But if it isn't GPL'd, I'd guess they won't be releasing their changes back to the community they borrowed it from.
Nah. If we move people from something that's entirely proprietary, to something that's mostly nonproprietary, that's a big step in the right direction. You've presented another "all or nothing" argument.
You are correct about the slowness. Both KDE and Gnome (and Windows) are forcing huge amounts of complexity on use because nobody designing these has had an actual "innovation". Try ROX or some of the tiny window managers to see some attempts to be different, and compare their sizes to KDE/Gnome/Windows. Unfortunatly I am starting to despair that we will never see an "innovation" because of the vast number of sheep that are locked into the Windows interface, even MicroSoft is having trouble making any changes!
Technically Linux is slower because of Xlib's horrid design. This is a fact and something should be done about it. The solution is not to make some forced toolkit/dll, though, it is to write *HARD* code to do *FAST, POWERFUL* graphics operations.
Wine works for some things I have tried. The only things I really care about thus far are games. A couple games work, most don't (that I have tried).
I may have need to get Word or some other non-game app to work but so far, I haven't managed to get them to work. I have found BIG problems with trying to get wine to work with virtually any WinME app. I can't even get notepad or minesweeper to run under wine. What of Win2k? How does wine fare with that one? I have that available to me too and would almost prefer to replace ME.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
You have a choice, you can buy the product or not buy the product. Copyrights and patents protect the creator from you stealing their hard efforts without just compensation.
You don't always have a choice. Before AT&T was split up, did you have a choice as to what telephone provider you could use? It was either AT&T or use a pay phone. It's the same in most areas with electric power: either the local energy monopoly or live like the Amish.
If anything like the the SSSCA passes: "You must buy computers with a DRM OS. Microsoft has a patent on DRM OS technology. Therefore, you must buy Microsoft software or never buy another computer for twenty years, until the patent expires." Then Microsoft goes and pulls a Sonny Bono trying to get its monopoly on computers extended.
Narrow government-granted monopolies are OK (to replace patented GIF LZW use PNG Deflate; to replace patented MP3 use Ogg Vorbis; to replace Win2k use FreeBSD). Broad government-granted monopolies (such as one-click shopping, hyperlinks, topological sorting of computation in a functional program, pause function on DVR, etc.) are not.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Wine works for some things I have tried. The only things I really care about thus far are games.
Games? Wine is not an emulator. To run games, you want a real emulator. Accurate emulators for NES, Super NES, Sega Genesis, Game Gear, and all Game Boy systems exist for FreeBSD and GNU/Linux. So far, I've covered thousands of compatible games. If you own the cartridge, get a cart reader (a GBA cart reader costs about $50), dump the games, and play them.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I just can't see Java overcoming C# once the latter takes off.
What about a free implementation of the C# language, virtual machine, and standard libraries?
Will I retire or break 10K?
If a console system somehow played games from the PS2, GameCube, XBox, Super Nintendo, Genesis, and ROMs downloaded off the internet for any of those systems AND Mame... wouldn't you buy it?
No. I would not buy it because I would have no chance of getting any kind of after-sale service from a company that's three days away from being shut down by the courts for violating patents on console hardware and copyrights on software.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Again new programs can choose not to use mshtml.dll
Emphasis on the "new." I understand that I can use Gecko when I write an app. But legacy proprietary programs are still vulnerable to the MSHTML bug-of-the-month, and you have no way of avoiding this but to quit using them.
I think I would rather have programs like MS IE and WMP packed with [my expensive copy of Windows] thank you very much.
However, the inclusion of IE prompts developers to create apps that depend on IE and are affected by its security holes.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Try to explain how to install and use DJGPP to a teen.
I have. Twice. Once to my friend Josh Kearney (who was 16 at the time) and once to somebody else on AIM (who was 19 at the time). It's easy: unzip all zipfiles, set up the environment variables in autoexec.bat or msconfig (depending on Windows version), restart the computer, and then from any command prompt type rhide to enter the IDE. RHIDE can manage project files (.gpr), has a text editor with overlapping windows, and can trace your code with the GDB engine.
It took me [when I was 15] about a week or two of work to figure out how GCC works.
I told them gcc -Wall foo.c bar.c baz.c -o foo.exe and that was it.
Now, yes, I know GCC is not a complete suite of tools. I'm saying the tools bundled with GCC [like the cygwin or mingw packages] don't include useful guis or anything.
RHIDE is an IDE for GCC, and it looks like the GUI of the old text-mode Borland IDE. So what if it runs in text mode rather than pixel mode? Or are you talking integrated resource editors?
Personally I am a fan of simple edit boxes. I like the color highlighting and the API popups. Anything else [macros for example] are just not features I would use to enter text into a box
RHIDE has relatively simple, relatively Windows-like edit boxes with syntax keyword highlighting. To get help on a function of a library whose Info docs are installed, place the cursor on the function and press Ctrl+F1.
Both [MSVC and free(beer) lcc-win32] include clean and simple gui editors that make project management simple.
So does RHIDE.
Packages like mingw or cygwin [which are the types of OSS packages most zealots here support] are complete from a compiler point of view but they lack editors and other useful integrated tools [resource editors for example].
RHIDE doesn't include a Win32 resource editor, but it doesn't include ResEdit (Mac OS Classic resource editor), whatever Mac OS X uses, or Glade (GTK+ resource editor) either. You can get resource editors separately. Both MinGW and Cygwin include windres, a Windows resource compiler.
If you object primarily to the separate download locations of the various components (compiler, ide, and resource editor), feel free to package your own distro of Cygwin software and recommend it to other developers.
Will I retire or break 10K?
For starters, bugs appear in Netscape/mozilla just as frequently as in IE.
But Mozilla bugs usually cause (at best) rendering flaws or (at worse) crashes of the app that don't affect the rest of the system even on Windows 9x, not like IE's bugs that range from (at best) refusing entirely to render XHTML served as application/xhtml+xml to (in the middle) crashing and bringing your whole system with it to (at worst) rooting your box. (Unless and until Microsoft can lower both WinXP's price and its system requirements, home users will keep using Win9x, where everything runs as root.) There's also a larger chance that script kiddies can start a widespread catastrophe with a widespread browser; diversity aids immunity.
Second the idea of using MSHTML is actually smart. Why would I re-invent the wheel each time I write an app that loads HTML pages to the screen?
I agree: that would be silly, but developers should at least give users a choice of which HTML library to use, just as Windows gives a choice of whether to open *.html with IE or Mozilla. I'd at least include hooks for MSHTML and Gecko.
The trick is to keep updating your windows install.
So how do I easily update Windows without using Windows Update, which requires me to use the very vulnerable app (namely IE) that I'm trying to fix?
Will I retire or break 10K?