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?"
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.
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 ?
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
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.
If Office runs on Lindows or on Wine, you can trust Microsoft will find ways to make it runeable [sic] only on Windows,...
So in other words, "Office isn't done until Lindows and Wine won't run it."
There are several sides to this. On the one hand, Wine translates Windows applications to run under other OSs, while Lindows provides services for native Windows APIs, so Microsoft will have to continually "innovate"... er, obfuscate these to prevent compatibility. Who is placed on the "treadmill" of forced code extension then, Microsoft?
That strikes me as a Good Thing because in doing so Microsoft will have to break the ability of Windows XP+1 to run Office XP (and Office 2000, etc), thus alienating a lot of customers who won't choose to upgrade MS Office. Mike Magee at The Inquirer still runs an early release of WinWord because the next release broke the glossary. And I still use WinWord95 because it works under OS/2 and later versions can still read the files it produces. Microsoft better not break backwards compatibility for its Office applications, or it will see a major customer backlash involving wholesale defection to other applications (like StarOffice) that can handle all the older MS Office formats.
On another hand, a large part of Microsoft's revenues proceed from its hammerlock on the OEMs (Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM, etc.) to preload Windows (and only Windows) on consumer and business PCs. If that monopoly is broken, a big chunk of Microsoft's revenues are suddenly at risk. If more reliable and secure OSs are found capable of running MS Office applications, this risk to MS increases. This will also be a Good Thing, IMHO. So Lindows and Wine are backing Microsoft into a corner - I applaud it.
By the way, if you have any comments about the Proposed Settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust Case, you can send them to:
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
You have 60 days from Nov 28. By law, all public comments received must be published in the Federal Register. One hopes public comments will be reviewed by the Court.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
> You have no right to criticize anyone--all parties are following the terms of the BSD license.
Looks like you're implying that we have no right to criticize anyone who doesn't break the law. You know some of believe that we should act at a higher standard then just what we are able to get away with.
Furthermore who are you to tell people what they can and can't criticize?
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.