Slashdot Mirror
Will Linux For Windows Change The World?
An anonymous reader writes "A month ago, a trial version of a little-known Linux application called 'CoLinux' was released that is the first working free and open source method for optimally running Linux on Microsoft Windows natively. It's the work of a 21-year-old Israeli computer science student and some Japanese open source programmers; in Israel, analysts are already saying it could help transform the software world." (CoLinux is short for Cooperative Linux; we mentioned this project in January as well.)
All the ease of use of Unix running on the stability of Windows.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Fuck all NIGGERS!
Fuck you #CODERS!
So would this be: In Soviet Israel, Windows Runs Linux?
that ruins the whole point. we wanna get rid of windows.
Whats the difference between this and Cygwin? Or (though I haven't tried it, MS SFU). Cygwin seems to run extremely fast and reliably already. Of course, Cygwin doesn't run executables other than standard Windows EXEs, but what isn't available for Cygwin (or natively on Windows) already? This seems like a project to run Linux for the sake of Linux
Implicit Evaluation with PHP
It's about time someone thought of doing this.
The NT(2000/XP) kernel has had the ability to run other native applications for a while.
It sounds like they are going the same way that Win16/WOW, OS/2 and Posix apps currently get run in Windows. There's no reason not to add Linux to this list.
but how would it make linux more popular when they dont have to get rid of windows to run linux easily?
Whatever you do, don't run 'X -configure' in it! It hard locks the system.
PS: There is a bug in the libpam-runtime, so have fun doing any sort of apt-get upgrade action.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)... oops
Seems Like what apple has done with Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X
I'd be interested to know the technical aspect of this 'program'. The article is pretty vague on what exactly it does. I wonder how windows handles it, like as a separate process or group of processes, what kind of filesystem it uses, whether it's emulated or not, and how in god's name he got linux kernel code such as virtual memory management and scheduling to work within the windows environment. Very interesting.
Why would I wish to make linux unstable by running it on a second rate operating system.
Got Code?
So, the next time your manager is afraid of having a Linux server on the production network, use CoLinux instead?
I'm not one to fawn over eyecandy, but seeing the WinXP interface side by side with the twm GUI (actually twm inside of XP!), I really see a major lack of user interface design effort on the Linux side.
Even with the KDE shell (via Knoppix), the XP UI is much more polished and 'consumer friendly' than the KDE shell.
Not that the UI is the most important part of Linux, of course. Linux has many more benefits that makes the lack of a polished UI relatively minor, IMO.
I have been pwned because my
Using Wine to emulate Windows to emulate Linux...
This comment was thought up very late at night and does not necessarily reflect my views at a more reasonable hour.
This kind of makes the "But does it run Linux?" joke a bit deprecated, wouldn't you say? Oh well, there's still Soviet Russia, Hot Grits, and Overlords.
Why? and How?
Hardware is so cheap, I would just get two boxes.
Landrew, guide me!
the lamb will lay down with the lion and there shall be peace. And the earth will shake with unrest, and stars will fall from the sky. ick.
-- the only good thing the French ever did was two chicks at one time
why would i wanna do that? i am unable to comprehend of a case scenario, where I would wanna do that. If I need to use Linux Compiler while sitting on a Windows box, I would rather use vmWare. Also vmWare has made great progress in their GSX and ESX, to make all this very easy.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
This could be neat, and potentially allow for a speed up in cross platform development. It would be nice to hop back and forth from one OS to the next.
Jeoin
It's already becoming a bit slow... Looks like the Israel Defence Force may have done it again. Already famous for spawning an entire generation of software geniuses now active in the world of wireless technologies, the IDF has now apparently incubated the technical talent capable of creating a project that could change the world: the ability to run Linux on Windows 2000/XP. 21 year-old Dan Aloni, a graduate of an IDF computer unit, has developed a Linux application - called Cooperative Linux ("CoLinux" for short) - that is a port of the Linux kernel that allows it to run cooperatively alongside another operating system on a single machine. For instance, it allows one to freely run Linux on Windows without using a commercial PC virtualization software such as VMware, in a way which is much more optimal than using any general purpose PC virtualization software. A member of the international open source community, Aloni developed CoLinux along with several Japanese programmers, collaborating over the Net. According to the Web site, they've written special core drivers for the host OS which modify the way the host OS receives notifications from the hardware - thus allowing both OSes to coexist peacefully - and run at a decent speed as well. In Israel, acclaim for a system potentially capable of allowing organizations to run Linux and Windows in parallel on the same computer or server has been immediate. Organizations would make great savings if they didn't any longer have to have separate machines for each OS, says Shahar Shemesh, a member of the Israeli open source forum. And Pini Cohen, a senior informations systems analyst at computer research company Meta Group Israel has called the development "an important stage in breaking Microsoft's monopoly." "As the trend is for Linux to take a more important role in organizations," Shemesh continues, "Aloni's development is extremely interesting. The question is how Microsoft will react and whether it will allow support for Windows systems if they have Linux systems installed on them." According to Haaretz.com that is carrying details of this story, Microsoft has so far made no comment on Aloni's development.
you read the title...
Won't it be built on top of all the flaws that come with it?
The biggest difference is that this is Linux, and Cygwin isn't. As every one who reads /. knows, Linux is better than anything else... ever. Anyone who thinks differently is a stupid troll.
Cygwin was a nice placeholder until Linux arrived for Windows. Now it is irrelevent. I wouldn't be surprised to see reports of its death shortly.
With Cygwin, you aren't running a full blown Linux environment. Here is the Cygwin FAQ. I can't read the article (Slashdotted), but judging from the snippet here, it seems like coLinux will run an actual Linux image, which would be a big difference.
Sigs are dangerous coy things
- Dunno, seems like the original article missed the actual link.
This is the biggest waste of time since Magic: The Gathering.
I don't see a single advantage over just running a standalone BSD install =] Screw you Linux, and screw you too BillyWare. Only a Linux nut would do something so pointlessly foolish. I just can't wait to need a license from MS to run Linux *rolls eyes*
1)Run Windows XP.
2)Install CoLinux
3)Install Wine in CoLinux
4)Run windows applications in Wine
Well, if you have nothing else to do on a weekend.........
...so users don't have a choice when they buy Dell, Compaq/HP or other brand names.
:0>
Thats how you change the world.
Worked well for Microsoft.
"As the trend is for Linux to take a more important role in organizations," Shemesh continues, "Aloni's development is extremely interesting. The question is how Microsoft will react and whether it will allow support for Windows systems if they have Linux systems installed on them."
Hmm.. there's an interesting question. Can Microsoft really refuse to support your windows installation if you're running Linux (as an application, even?) Or is this guy just trolling?
DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
why would you build a house on sand?
Actually, why would you build a house on rented sand?
Here's a list of things linux needs to conquer windows.
1.) cleartype fonts
2.) automatic directX compatibility for games
3.) one solid universal gui
It's a pretty short list, and I just don't think this project is filling the gap just quite yet.
Either OS can now crash the machine, so the MTBF gets worse. You get to pay both Microsoft and Red Hat. And few people run Linux because they like the desktop applications.
This sounds like one of those "I'm l33t" toys.
The ability to run Windows apps on Linux is far more useful.
Mandrake had an option to install to run within Windows *years* back. Then there's all the emulators and virtual servers, besides the likes of Knoppix.
Running from within Windows is only of use to developers - Joe AverageUser doesn't care. What's the point to run Linux from within Windows? Wow, pay money for WinOS to be able to run a free OS that you have installed without WinOS in the first place.
Cygwin is dying. Netcraft confirmed it, Cygwin is dying. The beleaguered Cygwin community... ;P
Un-news
How do you play?
it allows you to not have to set up a dual boot and let users keep their solitaire while you slowly migrate over. If there's something that will only work on Linux (or that you want users using on Linux) you can force them to use just that app in Linux so they don't freak out from being dumped in the lake and expected to swim.
I also would rather see how Linux is progressing by installing it like another application in Windows than having to set up a dual boot or dedicate an entire PC to it. It's far less of a hassle.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
CoLinux is apparently somewhat similar to Plex86, but additionally requires admin access whereas Plex86 wasn't supposed to. Anyone know more?
Hmmm. This whole OSS business is supposed to engender, among other things, choice.
Now, for various reasons, some geek, some pragmatic, some even business-like, I - a die-hard Windows user/programmer of over 10 years - am interested in Linux. Not to the exclusion of Windows, hoever.
It's not necessary to call us whores. Not all of us. At worst, there are the vast majority who think there is no choice, and they certainly need to be educated. But, having educated myself on the alternatives, I still choose to use Windows, and damned if I will apologize for it. If you want to convert the intelligent Windows geeks, (we're out there, lost in a sea of clue-bies) you might want to consider that we're worth a little respect.
By the way, I'm loading Mandrake on a virtual as I type this.
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
There are three approaches to this problem (aside from virtual machines, like VMWare, or emulation).
The Cygwin approach is to provide basically a windows library that implements the Linux API. You can then recompile Linux programs using that library to run on Windows.
The CoLinux approach is to basically run the Linux kernel as a process on Windows, and then you can run Linux binaries under Windows. Think of it as conceptually like User Mode Linux, but running on Windows instead of Linux.
The third approach is what my employer is doing, in a product that we have in beta right now, which I won't name since I'm not sure if we have announced this yet. It's kind of in between Cygwin and CoLinux--it provides an implementation of the Linux API on Windows, so you can run Linux binaries, but it has no Linux code in it. Basically the same way WINE lets you run Win32 binaries on Linux.
1. "Embrace" co-linux.
2. Extend same.
3. Repeat "Innovate" three times.
4. Profit.
I just wish that the emulation programeslike VMWare/VirtualPC could 100% emulate the environments. Using Virtual PC on OS X is amazingly useful. I'd rather run windows on top of Linux if I needed to use windows, but I would need 100% capability for games and such. Maybe when we have immediate booting ability we can have both OSes loaded into memory at once??
Just some thoughts.
-------
artlu.net
The IDF is famous for torture, assassination and opression. This is just some Israeli PR to deflect everyone from the reality of what the IDF does.
it would seem more productive to do this in reverse... that is to say, windows running under linux... not simply a compatability layer [wine] or an emulated system [vmware] -- it would be cool to see the NT kernel running as a process under linux (just as linux ran under mach in MkLinux, or OS9 runs under OS X)... it would probably be a lot faster to reboot that way... ;-)
-m
>Cygwin was a nice placeholder until Linux arrived for Windows. Now it is irrelevent. I wouldn't be surprised to see reports of its death shortly.
Not so fast, hombré.
CoLinux doesn't even have X yet.
You actually NEED Cygwin/X to be able to display any graphics, unless you want to run text-only... Which is reliable and all, but visually underwhelming for what Linux can actually do.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
How long before MS issues a service pack that "breaks" CoLinux?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Wait a second... you adverte a commercial product and you don't insert a url into your text... What is this?! [...] Slashdot?
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
Hey the segway rocked my fucking world!!! Ass goblin.
How about... Using Wine to emulate Windows to emulate Linux...
Probably wouldn't work. I doubt Wine (not)emulates that part of Windows.
But you should be able to do it the other way around: Run Windows apps in Wine in Linux in CoLinux in Windows.
Wouldn't be totally silly either: You could more ealisy compare the apps behavior under Wine and under Windows. (Though if it was sluggish or flakey on the Wine/Linux/CoLinux/Windows stack you'd have to confirm with Wine on native Linux to be sure it wasn't an artifact of running Linux under Windows.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Sorry, but this sort of thing IS NOT going to draw more people to Linux, if that's what you're thinking. This "try it befor you buy" shit is nonsence (the same reason I have nothing good to say about these bootable Foux-Linux distros). Pick one per box. Have two boxes if you must. But the reality is that Linux is not Windows, Windows is not Linux, the two do not meet except by Wine and Samba. If you need both, you need two boxes.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
a dedicated server sitting at the ISP, a laptop, a home server, and a home work station and a system sitting up in the closet.
I used to think it was nice having lots of computers. But once I hit three systems it was getting ugly. One work station, one test system and a dedicated server. Getting rid of the dedicated server and going to two systems at home was very nice.
It's definitly not worth it to fork out several hundred minimum to assemble a system just to try a "free" OS. I have an extra computer to try out Linux's latest offering every once in awhile. If you have an extra system lying around then it may be worth it to just use it to try Linux.
In my case, I really don't care to have three systems junking up my room. My home server runs WindowsXP and Linux didn't wow me enough to take it's place. Now that I got Server 2003 for free from the Uni it's highly unlikely that Linux will replace it once 2003 replaces XP.
And when I buy my new system to get back into the upper range of systems, it'll get 2K on it and replace the current 2K system which will be relegated to the attic.
Next time I try Linux, I'll definitly be checking out this offering so I don't have to pull down a third system into my room.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
In short: get companies to develop for Linux. Give them as incentive all the LGPL libraries already available and not ported or better maintained.
Then convince them that the 95% market share of Windows is not a problem, since the app will run in Windows anyway.
Much like X can run on Mac OS X?
Troll, yes, but also true
With the tiny micro ATX computers available today, you could have two or three machines and a keyboard/video/monitor switch in the space of a standard desktop case. Then you really /can/ run all the OSes you need to, without them comingling. Now that I'm used to having 4 PCs with different OSes handy (FreeBSD, Linux, Solaris x86, Windows), I couldn't imagine running only one computer. What happens when one of them goes down, anyway? It's nice to have backups.
Tyler Hamilton has things to say about Linux zealots. Ahem.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
For the moment, my only computer is an XP box. I'd rather have a Mac, but can't afford one at the moment. I'd also rather run Linux than XP, but there's a couple XP only apps I don't want to give up. Which means that my Dell 4600 is running XP exclusively, even though it has a second drive and even though I'd rather boot in Linux 95% of the time.
After playing around with Mepis, I was immediately impressed, and I'd like to do nearly all of my work in Linux. I don't want to give up my ability to run Windows, though, so what I want is a dual-boot system. Trouble is, I've asked at least one well-credentialed tech person who uses Linux heavily, and he says dual-booting is still fraught with complications.
I guess my question is, why is it possible to have a decent Linux distribution that runs within XP, but it's not possible to take a dual-drive Dell and easily make your system let you choose between XP and Linux atstartup? And why would anyone want to run Linux within XP, if they could simply have a dual boot system? Seems to me, if you just want to get a flavor of what running Linux is like, get ahold of Mepis and give it a whirl. Your next step should be the ability to gracefully install Linux and make your computer a dual-boot system.
To me, Linux under Windows sounds a lot like divorcing your wife but continuing to live in her house.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Phat Linux first did this many years ago!
http://www.phatlinux.com/about.html
In other news, the IDF has created an invention that they call "fire." IDF officials are saying that this new invention could revolutionize the world as we know it.
something like line?
And this is different from running a LiveCD, how?
Why, because I believe in the Great Pumpkin!
Cheeseburger, Cheeseburger, Pepsi, Pepsi!
"They say travel broadens the mind, so I went over the falls in a barrel." -Thomas Dolby
I see what you're saying about Linux vs. window managers and being separate projects. However, when considering an OS, the UI is a critical component to consider.
I liken it to hamburgers on the Atkins diet. Sure the bun is not the meat, and it's probably better for you to leave the bun and pickles off. But it's just not the same.
I have been pwned because my
How often do we, here at /., ask if a new software development is going to change the world? Constantly. And how often does it? Never.
This is no exception. It's just a sort of more native version of Cygwin. Sure, it could be kind of nifty, but it's not some major breakthrough which will leave the world shocked.
Could people please stop being so melodramatic with their subject lines?
Do you know what approach Corel Linux took? I remember one of it's big selling points was that you could run it from Windows just like any other program; and to delete it you just had to delete it's folder. It was slow, but it worked.
When can we expect to see a "port" of Windows to run as a driver aside with Linux? Essentially they look the same, but it is politically more correct to have Linux as master and Windows as slave.
It adds a new dimension to the entire joke. Now, you can run a Beowulf cluster of IBM zSeries 900's running multiple Linux images, which are in turn running coLinux which is running Linux on Windows.
NT has claimed to have POSIX compatibility since 3.1 , but this (if ever) applied only to source code compiled on a Windows compiler....
definitely a good thing, because it might then encourage more people to take up Linux and have a look at it. It would give those people who are so 'married' to Windows a chance to look at what all the fuss is about, and to really evaluate Linux and see if it would be right for them. They wouldn't have to partition, re-format, re-jig their hard drive... and if things got too tough open up the appropriate Windows application to get their job done instead.
I also see it as a good thing in some corporate environments. Say you have a call center, and all the operatives have been trained to use some program for their task (let's say they're in a credit card environment) and their software is Unix based. Well, porting to Linux could be straightforward. Also for these operators they don't need to access the computer for anything much besides this application... and maybe the web and email to keep in contact with people. So these guys would have Linux desktops. Now there would also be some other administrative people who don't take calls, and who have other tasks. Like payroll, or some other fancy tasks. Maybe these programs were written for Windows, and there is no Linux port planned. Rather than trying to make these programs work through Wine or Crossover Office or something like that the obvious solution is to make Linux run on top of Windows. Then people have the best of both worlds for those kind of operations.
I also see advantages of running CoLinux in a dual boot environmemnt. That is, if you are short on disk space. I presume that CoLinux would run on the same filesystem as Windows. In a traditional dual boot system you might have a 20 gb disk, and split it up two ways - 10gb for Windows, and 10Gb for Linux. Let's suppose you are a Windows fan, and you easily eat up that 10Gb for Windows use, and hardly use Linux, except to 'play around with'. You then have 8Gb of disk space that Windows can't access natively (yes there are third party apps now that get around this) and as such you are short on space. So if Windows and Linux are sharing the same 20Gb partition, then Windows can use more than that smaller partition on those occasions it is deemed necessary (like downloading by broadband that 5Gb linux distribution on X # of CD's).
I don't see it as a "real major" security problem, because I perceive its main target is the desktop, and not for running security-critical applications which could get hacked to shreds. Also that these Windows boxes would be firewalled anyway for Internet access - behind native Linux firewalls on native Linux machines.
Mark.
There are a lot of laptops out there that aren't powerful enough to run linux on vmware on windows or windows on vmware on linux.
I wouldn't do it without a 3.0 Mhz system with 2 Gb of RAM, and at least a 40 Gb disk. I happen to have such a laptop, and I bought it especially for this purpose and paid lots of bucks for it. But my old 1.7 Ghz, 30 Gb, 256 Mb RAM Vaio R505 should be able to handle this...
The easiest option I have found is the use of two HDD's: one for linux, one for XP. Choose your poison at boot time using the BIOS options. This gets me around upgrade problems with MBR's and GRUB config.
Having not used this native-emulation mentioned, I still rather doubt that Linux would have truly have control enough to avoid Windows' shortcomings. If XP locks up (which I have NEVER had) I imagine you lose Linux.
This does not, however, get me around my objections to Microsoft's business practices.
I'll stick with Mac OS X and Linux, except where XP is required for specific software - you gotta do what ever it takes sometimes.
Too lazy to sign in, so sign me:
nonameisgood
It's a game about a movie about a game.
That's pretty close. =)
So I noticed the cygwin.dll, so I guess 'native' is relative..? Definately cool, but I'll stick with Hummingbird and an smbmount from my debian box.
You're going to be running applications on an unstable kernel. So why do this anyway? It would be better to run windows on the linux kernel instead of vice versa.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Wow this is really cool. Now I can do generic stuff (email, word processing, etc.) in linux (more secure), while still having immediate access to all the windows-only stuff I need. Very cool.
I'm assuming you ment the ABI not the API. The API is what Cygwin does to run the binaries you need the ABI. This is why Linux can run *BSD programs because it supports the ABI. That also what Sun and IBM did for thier Unixes so they could run prorgams compiled for Linux. You still need the libraries though. Of cause if you could get the ABI working you could always do static comiles which removes the need for libraries but you'd still need X for the GUI. You'd also need to do some magic to get sockets and pipes working because as far as I know they are built into Windows. (You could lincense someone elses I guess)
Just because a thing can be done,
doesn't mean that it should, right?
Oh great. A new method to allow
Windoze viruses, trojans, and other
malware into a "linux sandbox".
Microsoft will claim "See, linux
applications are vulnerable, too!"
Much better for Wine, Bochs, etcetera
to run native Windoze applications
well (and in a "Borg-Box" so they
can't foul linux).
Yet another sickening blow has struck what's left of the *BSD community, as a soon-to-be-released report by the independent Commision for Technology Management (CTM) after a year-long study has concluded: *BSD is already dead. Here are some of the commission's findings:
.005% of internet servers. A recent attempt at a face-to-face summit in Boulder, Colorado culminated in an out-and-out fistfight between core developers. Hotel security guards broke up the melee and banned the participants from the hotel. Two of the developers were hospitalized.
Fact: the *BSDs have balkanized yet again. There are now no less than twelve separate, competing *BSD projects, each of which has introduced fundamental incompatibilities with the other *BSDs, and frequently with Unix standards. Average number of developers in each project: fewer than five. Average number of users per project: there are no definitive numbers, but reports show that all projects are on the decline.
Fact: X.org will not include support *BSD. The newly formed group believes that the *BSDs have strayed too far from Unix standards and have become too difficult to support along with Linux and Solaris x86. "It's too much trouble," said one anonymous developer. "If they want to make their own standards, let them doing the porting for us."
Fact: DragonflyBSD, yet another offshoot of the beleaguered FreeBSD "project", is already collapsing under the weight of internal power struggles and in-fighting. "They haven't done a single decent release," notes Mark Baron, an industry watcher and columnist. "Their mailing lists read like an online version of a Jerry Springer episode, complete with food fights, swearing, name-calling, and chair-throwing." Netcraft reports that DragonflyBSD is run on exactly 0% of internet servers.
Fact: There are almost no FreeBSD developers left, and its use, according to Netcraft, is down to a sadly crippled
Fact: NetBSD, which claims to focus on portability (whatever that is supposed to mean), is slow, and cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs. "That about drove the last nail in the coffin for BSD use here," said Michael Curry, CTO of Amazon.com. "We took our NetBSD boxes out to the backyard and shot them in the head. We're much happier running Linux."
Fact: *BSD has no support from the media. Number of Linux magazines available at bookstores: 5 (Linux Journal, Linux World, Linux Developer, Linux Format, Linux User). Number of available *BSD magazines: 0. Current count of Linux-oriented technical books: 1071. Current count of *BSD books: 6.
Fact: Many user-level applications will no longer work under *BSD, and no one is working to change this. The GIMP, a Photoshop-like application, has not worked at all under *BSD since version 1.1 (sorry, too much trouble for such a small base, developers have said). OpenOffice, a Microsoft Office clone, has never worked under *BSD and never will. ("Why would we bother?" said developer Steven Andrews, an OpenOffice team lead.)
Fact: servers running OpenBSD, which claims to focus on security, are frequently compromised. According to Jim Markham, editor of the online security forum SecurityWatch, the few OpenBSD servers that exist on the internet have become a joke among the hacker community. "They make a game out of it," he says. "(OpenBSD leader) Theo [de Raadt] will scramble to make a new patch to fix one problem, and they've already compromised a bunch of boxes with a different exploit."
With these incontroverible facts staring (what's left of) the *BSD community in the face, they can only draw one conclusion: *BSD is already dead.
i think this would be great, but WINDOWS doesn't SUPPORT my SCSI CONTROLLER.. so I -have- to use Linux, and then use Wine to run my computer! DOH! hehehehhe
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Software does not change the world. People do. Software is mearely the mechanism by which one persons actions affect the larger population. Atleast until some one manages to create the first conscious machine that is able to alter itself and spawn children.
OK. So i've got a DFI LanParty NF2 running an OC'd barton. this is a pretty nice performing
nForce2 mobo with dual 10/100LANs, onboard 5.1 audio, SATA, 400MHz FSB, etc.
We all know that the 2.4 kernels don't do well with the onboard LAN(realtek and nvidia), and
audio support is iffy, (although 2.6 is supposed to be better...)
AND we all know that nvidia's closed/proprietary drivers aren't necessarily the best thing(kernel
taint, no tuning, etc.) which means the distribution I chose, RH9(2.40...shrike) sucks because
it's way too much work to get the LAN(nv) and audio(soundstorm) to work,(yes i did try
building from the source tarball downloaded from nVidias website.)
So i caved and bought XP. It works fine(other than actually giving money to M$).
Here's the big question: if i try to run RH9 on top of XP with colinux, will the network and
audio work better, since XP already knows how to talk to those devices?
and what about all those colliding IRQs that i can't figure out?
BTW, just because i use IRIX/RH9/NT4/OSX at work doesn't mean i want to hack at home too...
"...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."
Pretty much
- every
distribution can make this happen for you automatically... (yes, speaking from experience). The most recent of which I installed was Mandrake, works like a charm, nice easy colorful menu and all =-P (This is on an old Thinkpad 600E, with only one hard drive, so I'd assume you would have no problems at all).coLinux Wiki!
... is being infected with that terrible plague which has laid low *BSD... Windows! (and linux).
Terrible, truly terrible, the windows boxen have united together in a Beowulf cluster in order to destroy Cygwin... AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO!
dual booting didn't have major complications 8 years ago, or ever since did.
the major complications came when ntfs became commonplace and you couldn't read it properly from linux.
Great. Who knew. I can now effect a linux kernel with the BSOD. Scary isn't it. While the project seems very good for those of us in the corporate world stuck with MS and sick of compiling for Cygwin, one wonders how fortunate we are to now be able to kill linux kernels via BSOD too.
-- Friends don't let friends buy Nokia.
...You made all windows and mac apps run on linux, then who in there right mind would use windows? Well besidees the cool desktop, I love those rolling green hills!
I think that by doing this, it would only motivate people away from Windows and onto the Linux platform. Besides, with Linux LiveCDs, we can run Linux on Windows boxes without having to rid outselves of Windows itself.
And on a different note, people will get to see the most stable program that Windows has to offer. Even though it may crash a few times, giving Linux a bad name... but it's Windows fault.
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
I'd be more interested in the ability to natively run an entire windows environment in linux, i'd like to see further development of WINE, to the point where it can run most applications, and perhaps even an entire operating version on windows. Since my only windows box is my laptop, i'd like the ability to still run certain windows applications i need while staying inside my favourite linux environment
I love to deploy my packages
I dual-boot XP and Mandrake, but frequently I wish I could use apps from both at once. When developing a web site, for example, I want to simultaneously use Paint Shop Pro (XP) and Apache/Perl/etc (Linux). It's a pain to reboot into XP just to fool around with a graphic.
This is a specific example; my general point is that it'd be very handy to be able to switch between all your favorite apps without having to reboot.
P.S. I don't think dual booting is "fraught with complications" -- maybe it used to be, but not any more.
I should buy some cement.
A lot of newbie users who have some desire/need to do UNIX software development (for example, a good deal of MUD "coders") could benefit from this a lot. Most suffer through the hell of trying to get Cygwin to compile and run their apps. Getting an easy-to-install Linux system that Just Works would be bliss for these people.
;-)
And no, a second box is not a solution. "Hardware is so cheap" doesn't cut out the fact that many aspiring coders may not even have $50 (hell, I started at 9, think I had that kind of chash?), may not have the desk space, may not want the extra power drain, may not want to get a second monitor (or a KVM), etc. Just running Linux in a "window" on Windows is very cheap ($0, assuming they already own the Windows machine), provides no physical space/power hassles, and would be rather easy to use.
Again, for some people, switching to Linux, a second box, or dual booting just *isn't a choice*. For those people, CoLinux is a boon. For the rest of us, it's just a sick toy.
I recall there being a lot of discussion when ms introed Cleartype about Steve Wozniak having developed a virtually identical font smoothing algorithm for the Apple II. Has this been rebutted? Do a google search for wozniak and cleartype. Here's one article.
Isn't this just UserModeLinux ported to Windows?
Whaddya bet that MS changes their EULA to make running another OS concurrently a violation of said EULA? I can see that happening judging by their history.
User Mode Linux hacker and all-round-cool-dude Dan Shearer has previously mentioned he's interested in porting Linux to the JVM. This would enable you to run native Linux apps on anything than can run a JVM, and also allow you to have multiple OSs on those machines.
Its pretty hard tho - the JVM is nowhere near a complete hardware platform, but it would be possible.
"Looks like the Israel Defence Force may have done it again. Already famous for spawning an entire generation of software geniuses now active in the world of wireless technologies, the IDF has now apparently incubated the technical talent capable of creating a project that could change the world: the ability to run Linux on Windows 2000/XP."
This coming from the same people that broadcasted sattelite launches unencrypted?
Only hardcore geeks dream about having more boxes lying around.
Heck, I'm a hardcore geek and I already got rid of all my extra boxes (old pentiums and 486 lying around). And I can't wait for the day I can pawn off this Duron to some poor soul and finally get a nice, quiet, and tiny mini-itx system to replace this monster.
But then, I'm getting old and I guess I'm all boxed out now. Before long, I'll be gardening...
You can't say that this won't take the world by storm. Just imagine -- a system with all the stability of Windows and the user-friendliness of Linux! What's not to like?
May we never see th
It's not "fraught with complications" -- the repartitioning is the most technically involved step. It's just a pain in the butt to be rebooting your system and to have a set of apps that can't be running at the same time as another set of your apps.
May we never see th
There is basically one issue with dual booting linux and windows, and that is where to put your data. Linux now has pretty good NTFS read support but reliable NTFS write support is only available by using the NTFS.SYS driver from Windows itself. There IS good support for changing the contents of a file on NTFS but not for creating files, enlarging them, etc. You can use this to create a disk image on an NTFS volume for use with linux, but that won't solve the problem of having both operating systems having access to a partition they can both read and write. You could use something like FAT32, but it sucks. It's slow, it has silly limitations, it doesn't support any kind of security whatsoever. Other than that, dual-booting the two is trivial. Just make your /boot your primary master, install Windows on your secondary master, put your / on your tertiary master and your fourth fdisk partition slot is an extended, for whatever else you need. Set the NT partition active, install NT, then boot a linux CD or floppy (heh) and install, placing the boot loader in the MBR and teaching it about NT. Voila, dual boot. Now you just have to decide on how you're going to handle those files...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Part 1 | Part 2
Until then we have
THIS
Star Trek, there maybe hope.
Excellent explanation.
Of coure the primary benefit isn't just being able to run Linux binaries, but rather being able to run an entire Linux distribution! For example, you could boot Knoppix without exiting Windows! That's pretty freakin cool.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Huh? What complications? I dual-booted for several years before ridding myself of Windows entirely, and never ran into any complication that a reinstall of the bootloader wouldn't fix. (And even that can be avoided, if you install Windows before Linux.)
It's a little more complicated if you want to share files between systems, but it's not that hard to work around.
"It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape." -- Wil Wheaton
No.
'dual-booting is still fraught with complications'
Since when? I've never seen a lot of big problems with it. Sure, it can be a little tricky to get set up at first (mostly because MS's OSes don't play nicely with others, even in many cases other MS OSes).
If you want to run Linux apps, but are reluctant to give up your Windows, it seems to me like what you need instead of dual-booting is some way to actually run both at once, like VMWare (or Plex86 if it was ready for prime-time), or perhaps even running Linux under Windows...
I personally run Linux all the time (don't have Windows), but I work with a number of people who use both and none of them has reported problems with dual booting.
So how does this run on Win2k/XP if the drive is formatted in NTFS? Does it communicate with Windows when writing? Or does it need its own partition?
Who doesn't like free music?
The only thing I'd use this for is to run WINE to get my favourite Winshit apps running under .... wait a minute!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
QEMU can't run windows very well yet, but it runs Linux, ReactOS and handful of others already.
Bzzzt. Wrong. YOU are a troll. The most cursory of Google searches shows the article appears verbatim as above here.
I guess my question is, why is it possible to have a decent Linux distribution that runs within XP, but it's not possible to take a dual-drive Dell and easily make your system let you choose between XP and Linux atstartup?
It is possible. Most major distributions (eg, Red Hat, SuSE, stacks more) detect the presence of your Windows partition and simply add it to the boot menu.
It won't change the world.
Running linux under windows is not the same thing as running linux. Period.
It may be better than running VMWare or the like.. but it's not "2 systems on one computer."
It's still windows, with all that implies.
Unless there is some miraculous (and I do mean miraculous) kernel level integration..... there is no performance benefit or anything like that...
So.. is it neat? yeah.. kinda. Is it revolutionary? Hardly.
XEN is far cooler....
Let me know when they have windows for windows.
To me, Linux under Windows sounds a lot like divorcing your wife but continuing to live in her house.
Windows will go down on you much more often than any woman will.
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
I think it'll be good for teaching as most schools will already have windows machines and you know how pricey those sparcs are. And the fact that they don't have to restart the machine and use a boot-selector, helps reduce f*ck ups by the admins at the said schools and also helps reduce the security factor of being able to select the boot, though linux to begin with would be better...and using a winex/etc. type of setup is better.
In essence, it's more of a demo of their skillz.
Gotta give 'em braggin' rights though more braggin' rights goes to those who got Micro$oft software to run on linux.
Wonder when a 2.6.x kernel version will be out.
Most Linux distributions, when you install them, will automatically put in a boot loader like Lilo and configure it so that you can boot either Linux or Windows. Some can even repartition the drives for you to make room for the Linux partitions. Installing a dual boot system couldn't be easier.
/home and then have to boot back into Linux, move it to a FAT32 partition, then boot back into Windows.
There are some issues. First, there is a risk that one OS could mess up the other. The bigger problem is that Windows doesn't always play nice, but you can do some serious damage in Linux as root. The biggest problem with dual boot is that you can't use both OSes at once, and it usually takes several minutes to switch between them. Because of that my dual boot boxes usually end up sitting in one OS most of the time. Finally, it can be a bit cumbersome to move data between the OSes - writing on NTFS partions in Linux is still kind of iffy, and Windows in general won't see the Linux partitions. Nothing is more annoying than to boot into Windows and realize that you left something important in
If she is still cooking/cleaning then what's the difference? It's not like she was going to bang you anyway.
... is hardware support. Nobody can sell hardware without making sure that it works for Windows out of the box; the same isn't true for Linux. It's a chicken and the egg problem: there won't be "mandatory" hardware support until Linux is widely used, and Linux won't be widely used until there is mandatory hardware support.
Of course, in the meantime the folks whose job it is to get this stuff working are able to do it pretty well without much help from the manufacturers. I don't know what's involved with it, or even who does it... I just know that I can load Mandrake on a machine and have 80% of the stuff "just work", and 15% more work after a quick google.
I just read through all the comments here and even for /., there's way too much BS.
/.
This is cool for a number of reasons:
1) It can access rootless X via Cygwin's xserver.
2) It can run linux from your dual boot partition! (No, I haven't done this myself but it's in the FAQ.)
3) Some of us want to run both XP and Linux simultaneously from our laptops. (No, I'm not going to carry two laptops around with me.) I need XP for Matlab and its windows-only toolkits and also for the ultra-cool Medved QuoteTracker, and I want Linux for just about everything else.
4) Cygwin is great but not everything compiles or runs correctly within it. (E.g., even Perl has bugs within Cygwin.) Also, contrary to popular belief, not everything is prebuilt for Cygwin and dl'ing binaries saves me enough time to read
5) I think all the people shouting "one box/one OS!" are in dire need of a paradigm shift. Thinking like that is the reason MS rules the OS world, and we should be celebrating anything that chips away at that misconception.
6) Finally, having linux and Windows apps side-by-side will go a long way towards getting linux coders to improve their terrible looking GUIs. Contrary to some of what I've read here, IMHO, improving the look of linux is the single most important requirement for gaining mass appeal. And like it or not, XP apps today look a lot better than Linux ones.
In fact, it appears the Cygwin (POSIX inside Win32) people and the Wine (Win32 inside POSIX) people are using each other's programs as a round trip test case. And yes, you can probably run Wine inside CoLinux if it implements all the POSIX APIs that Wine requires. However, because this CoLinux is kernel level, it probably can't be run inside a free Windows ABI emulator until the ReactOS (NT kernel clone) people get their codebase to at least 0.5.
In Soviet Russia, joke depricates you!
Wow! Its so simple!
I can't even imagine why everyone isn't doing this!
If you can jump head-first into Linux, go ahead. The easiest way is if you can have some help from your bios. I'd almost given up doing dual-boot the conventional way since Windows 2000 was being such a whiny little bitch about where it could and could run after being installed to a non-default location.
Some modern computer bioses (Asus in particular) have a built in boot selector: press 'Escape' after turning the power on before it finishes the power-on self test. Whatever drive you select becomes the primary for that session, swapping out the ordering behind the system's back. So dual-booting is completely transparent to the installed software - as is the case with the FreeBSD / Windows 2000 box sitting to my right. Both OSes think they're installed on the primary drive.
However, I can definitely see the benefits of running Linux under Windows over dual-booting. Dual booting is only superior if you can migrate *all* your tasks over to Linux. Like if you only ever rebooted into Windows to play games. But being able to run both systems at once makes a lot of things more convenient. For example, software development, testing cycles & debugging are going to be far faster if you don't have to keep rebooting back & forth between the two systems. If you change something under Linux, you should then make sure it still works under Windows, for example.
Usually people haven't migrated to Linux because there's something they don't want to lose that they can only get in Windows. For me, it is games, video hardware support, tax software and printer drivers. Games are close, printers almost work - and as soon as somebody does Linux tax software, I'm there. I'd actually prefer FreeBSD to get all of the above first, but beggars can't be choosers.
Er, I mixed my terms. This is what happens when I slashdot with a serious headache. You put /boot on your first primary, winxp on your second, / on your third. My information is still good, but my terminology is wrong, potentially leading people to think that they need three IDE buses...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Personally, I have not had any problems with creating a dual-boot system. Here is (basically) what I do when installing a new system:
- use a boot CD/disk to load up linux
- fire up fdisk and create two partitions
- reboot and let the windows install CD have its way with the first partition
- reboot and let a linux distro CD (redhat and suse are both nice ones I've tried) chop up the second partition however it wants to
- you're done. I think both redhat and suse automatically realize you have a windows install, set up the grub conf file accordingly, and overwrite the MBR
In a nutshell, you always want to do things in this order: partition, install windows, install linux.Magnatune: Quality (DRM-free) MP3/FLAC/
The wife of a friend of mine is legally blind. In order to see the text on the screen, she needs to use some software that "zooms in" on a part of the screen, and by moving the mouse to the side of the screen, the zoom area pans in that direction. She has been using this software for over a decade, and it works much better than xzoom, where you have to find the zoom window, click, drag out into the screen, release the mouse button, and then try to click on the small version of whatever it was you were looking at in the zoom window. I have not found any Linux tools that come close to the usability of her Windows software.
Her little brother stayed at their house for a while, and he wound up downloading Kazaa, along with just about every piece of malware out there. Imagine only being able to see 5% of the screen at once, trying to do your homework, and having ads pop up in IE every 2 minutes. She was having a hard time with her schoolwork because of the interference the malware was causing her. Since I have not run Windows on my own machines for years, I had no idea how to help them; I have never encountered this kind of problem at home. I downloaded AdAware (I hear it mentioned on Slashdot once in a while) and a couple other programs, but they failed to clean the trojan programs off their system. I installed ZoneAlarm, which blocked outgoing connections from 6 or 7 random programs that kept trying to "phone home", and the ads stopped popping up.
I suggested that they install and use Knoppix in order to give them more security, but the only thing that kept them back was this accessibility software that zoomed in on the screen. If this Windows-only software could provide the accessibility she needs in order to use the computer, then a Linux starts becoming a possibility for her. This is where Linux-under-Windows starts to make sense; at least until accessibility software under Linux catches up.
Pick one per box. Have two boxes if you must.
I received my box as a gift and cannot afford another because I'm still looking for a job, you insensitive clod!
Here is an argument for Linux-Windows compatibility.
Currently, a number of Linux-Windows compatibility projects catch a good deal of flak from Linux advocates. Cygwin seems to go mostly unscathed, but a lot of people bash WineX. Regular ol' wine catches some complaining, as does Crossover Office. Anything dealing with Microsoft servers (Exchange interoperability, for example) occasionally gets the same. Ports of Linux software to Windows sometimes catch flak.
A number of people seem to think that compatibility damages Linux. In the case of WineX ports, they worry that game companies may feel that advising users to use WineX is "good enough". In the case of ported Linux software to Windows, people feel that it decreases a Linux-only advantage, and brings Windows up to the level of Windows.
I think that these arguments generally fall flat.
Eric S. Raymond's fundamental thesis is that "Open Source works better than closed source." It isn't an ideological argument, a la Stallman's approach -- it's just that people are *better off* with Open Source. There is less duplication of labor, more value is promulgated to a greater number of people, bugs are more quickly fixed, etc.
Building on ESR's argument, I feel that it's reasonable to say that Linux is better than Windows in a number of ways -- furthermore, it improves more quickly. It is less expensive, provides a good amount of functionality, and has a good deal of focus on security. It is free.
Why, then, do people not use Linux instead of Windows? It's because of inertia -- it's difficult to have a Linux workstation interoperate nicely with a Windows one in a number of ways -- format and protocol compatibility are significant and operate strongly in Microsoft's favor. The leveraging of compatibility has served Microsoft well for years. They suck people into their camp, and then work hard to make it difficult to leave.
Projects that work to help Windows and Linux interoperate, I argue, assist Linux in the long run. In the short run, they may provide additional value to Windows users, or may allow someone to scrape along on Windows instead of moving to enjoy some crucial tool. However, they ultimately lower the compatibility barrier to switching, and some number of people will choose to switch. Those people make it more difficult for Microsoft to maintain compatibility barriers.
Ultimately, anyone that wants to see Linux become more popular knows that ultimately, those Windows users will have to manage to find their way across the divide. Making the path easier is a primary goal -- the strongest weapon Microsoft has of all is in keeping that gap wide. If there are lush meadows in the Linux world, but a vast canyon separating those meadows from the majority of the people, then those people will not move.
Let us say that GIMP is ported to Windows (it has been). Perhaps a number of people are able to use Windows to use the GIMP instead of having to install Linux. There are, however, few people that are likely to choose to switch to Linux just for the GIMP. However, now all those people are using a piece of software that exists, is open source, and works well on Linux -- in fact, if anything, it works better on Linux. They have been moved away from Photoshop or whatever else they'd be using that exists only on Windows. The next time they consider switching, instead of facing the loss of all their apps, they face the loss of only a few. And since Linux is ultimately better than Windows, they can begin to move across.
It is much easier to move to Linux today than it was a few years ago. There is usable (if not perfect) Office file format support, the ability to connect to Windows shares, and the ability to talk to many Microsoft servers. However, it is still not a trivial path. Most people are not willing to simply drop Windows and hope for the best, so it may involve repartitioning to allow dual-booting. There is a huge learning curve that must be overcome -- tech folks gene
May we never see th
Since you don't know what I'm using my system for, if I were you I would think again before calling me an idiot.
For the work that I do, I need that horsepower to have multiple VMs running simultaneously, running different OS's, all doing some serious compilations.
For that, you need the kind of machine I described. Now that can't be done using a standard laptop at all. But for going on the road, colinux would be nice to use on a smaller, lower power, standard laptop. Because why would I want to shell out a several hundred bucks for vmware just for that? Idiot...
I've seen a number of scattered reasons (above) for running coLinux but here is the scenario I have for using coLinux.
The need to run a linux Distribution from within a Windows box not the need to run Linux applications on a Windows box:
First I want to point out that cygwin will get you a secure shell, gcc, and a number of other biaries, as ported from Linux. But it will not natively behave the same way that Linux does. The primary difference I'm referring to is hardware support and native binary support. It is for this reason that Cygwin will never be as useful to the Linux world as other distributions are. (Contributions back to Linux from Cygwin are not practical.... [Mozilla aside, there are no other good examples of OSS projects where there is a large number of developers porting their software from a Cygwin environ back to Linux]). There are several interesting cases of Linux software being compiled for windows (Xine, Gaim, X, etc) but these programs are not sufficient to be considered a "linux distribution within windows" instead should be considered, Linux apps for windows.
Consider now, my personal usage example, I have had a Linux dist sitting idle on my drive because I sold my second box (power is expensive!), and I needed to develop in MFC (Direct X 9.0) for a course that I was taking (leave linux on one part, install XP on the other). Right now there are several applications and other things that I'm missing from when I had primarily booted Linux, but I can't move away from Windows and still continue my studies (and btw, dual-booting is not an option I'm eager to go back to [takes forever, and I always want that one windows or linux app when I'm in the wrong boot]). So, after this project matures, I will hopefully be able to mount my existing Linux partition, boot my kernel, and access my applications and settings as I left them before, without disturbing my continued study with MFC and Direct X.
A few final points:
1.) XP is not as unstable as everyone here seems to contend, I have had weeks of uptime on my computer at work, as has the other developer who works with me.
2.) Cygwin does not allow developers to comfortably develop Linux apps on windows, and is limited inherently by Windows (terminal width constrained to less than 72 characters, X Windows loads slowly, etc).
3.)There are a number of practical uses for virtual machines but the speed of these systems, their somewhat limited application (hardware) support, and the price of the software ($$$ you would pay a heck of a lot more for VMWare than for Windows XP, buddy) tends to leave something to be desired from that corner of the market.
In conclusion, yeah, coLinux may not change the world, and it may not even turn a few heads, but it certainly could be useful for a number of people such as myself who are looking to get a little bit more Linux out of their Windows boxes.
.: 2+2 = PI SQRT(1+N)
May you be modded down for using old and tired humor you insensitive clod. And by the way, you can buy a perfectly adequate 486 Linux box at Goodwill for $50. You see, Linux does not require the same resources as Windows. Now go out and get a cheap box, and download some ISO, and run a dedicated Linux box along side your Widows resource hog. Tie the two up with Samba, simmer for a few days, and enjoy with a nice American pilsner.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
No.
Next question.
What are you talking about?
1. Of course you shouldn't be running the xserver in it. The documentation clearly states this, and explains that the way to get a gui is to either:
a) Run an X server under Windows and use XDMCP to connect... or
b) Use VNC to connect to it.
PS: There is a bug in the libpam-runtime, so have fun doing any sort of apt-get upgrade action.
First of all... if this were true, it would be a bug in one of the harddisk images, not in coLinux... coLinux is just the kernel and the mechanism for running it in windows... It is not a Linux "distribution".
Second, it works for me. I used the provided debian disk image and dist-upgraded to testing with no trouble whatsoever.
I also had very little trouble using VNC to get Fluxbox running either in full screen or in a window(TM).
Even at version 0.60 it is very impressive. I suppose it will be even more impressive when it is included on a Knoppix cd with a simple installation method for those who are too lazy to RTFM.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For business use, hardware support is pretty much a red herring. Clueful purchasing by the IT department pretty much takes care of that and it isn't too hard to do. It is a problem for Joe Sixpack; I'll grant you that.
A big part of what keeps many users from switching is fear of being in a totally new environment that don't understand. This provides a midpoint between the two worlds: get a taste of Linux, and if you start to panic just hit the good old "Windows" key on the keyboard and you're back to familiar territory.
I see CoLinux doing the same thing for Linux that Windows 3.1 did for Windows.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Mother fucker man!!!! What kind of mods are hitting this post It was so goddamned funny I spit my coffee out and it's getting ated a troll???!!! It would only be a troll if it were the full page BSD is dying crap. This was just a couple of lines. It's certainly worth a +4 Funny. I really hate it when shitheads get mod points and then make complete asses of themselves. If you're going to go be some kind of fucking net cop, why don't you mod down all the REAL off-topic shit you mother fuckers?! Damn you all to hell!!!
For me dual-booting has not been a problem and I've been dual-booting on and off for seven years now. These days most installers do it fir you but there has been an easy to follow HOWTO for ages now.
Yeah, data storage is a bit of a problem but I just make sure I have at least on FAT32 partition for any data I need to share between the OSes.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
Dual booting is a crappy compromise at best. I personally think that people should pick an OS and just make it work. It's usually not as hard as people think it is... Provided that if you want to play games, you use Windows. My Windows system is a little flaky of course, because it's Windows, but in general I get good uptimes, it's fast, I have it skinned and looking nice, and it does the job... of running games. My linux systems do what little real work there is to be done around here.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No Windows version.
Can't compile in Cygwin.
Enter coLinux... finally a way to run GnuCash on my Windows laptop.
I am sure there are other programs like this.
It is even possible to run Linux programs in rootless windows so that they appear to be native Windows applications.
does the Microsoft DRM patent buyouts make sense? Or anything else, for that matter?
C|N>K
I tried to install coLinux under VMWare (guest OS is Win2K) running on Linux, but it crashed VMWare...
If I remember correctly, it was not anything that anybody wanted. I never knew anybody who bought it.
resigned
I can agree with your opinion here, but would like to add something.
THE CONFIG FILE MUST BE THERE. Manage it with a GUI if you like, but preserve the option of working with the file directly.
Those that understand how to put the right tools on those files gain far more than those that need the GUI lose.
Blogging because I can...
well, i actualy use colinux a lot with the provided Debian image, and got to say that for the occasional linux binary i might have to run it is wholly sufficient, and behaves just the way a linux machine on a local network would behave, except that you don't need a second machine.
using cygwin/X is a breeze, couple it with a virtual multidesktop emulator, and you can switch between linux and windows at a keypress.
also, it enables you to finally actually build linux binaries under windows, which i heard cygwin couldn't to the full extent that was necessary.
It's truly not always the fastest solution, but anything that keeps me from rebooting is a step ahead.
NO, 99.9% of the world don't give a shit about running linux on windows. For them, running is just a means of getting from one place to another.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
No, really? DirectX was designed explicitly for games. That means that early in its life, it sacrificed accuracy for speed (compared to OpenGL, which took the opposite approach and didn't really gain speed on consumer hardware until 3D accelerators took off). Even now, DirectX is driven by games and multimedia, not CAD and scientific/engineering requirements. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and in fact it's better for games that it's focused on games and multimedia rather than engineering applications, because the requirements for games are different.
If you're writing scientific software, use OpenGL. If you're writing a (Windows- or XBox-targetted) game, use DirectX.
Oh, yeah, it's also possible to use DirectX and OpenGL together. Like SDL, DirectX is an entire framework, not just a 3D rendering interface. Id and theCarmack use DirectX for input and sound while rendering their 3D visuals in OpenGL.
I posted something to this effect the first time this was announced. Essentially, I don't think this technology has the likelyhood of producing anything that's ever remotely safe to use. Here's why:
CoLinux essentiallys hooks the timer interrupt IIRC and thereby allows Linux and Windows to play along together. They then take a Linux kernel, and muck with it so that all the memory allocation/potentially nasty stuff goes through Windows first.
However, they make two huge assumptions in this. One, they assume that the Windows OS isn't going to do something very weird/subtle to kernel space code. Two they assume that Linux is going to behave in all places like a Windows device driver.
The danger here is that you're sticking two pieces of software together that were never meant to run together (imagine taking two programs, giving them different start addresses, and running them in the same address space.. you'd get some horribly subtle bugs if either process depended on something in a location that happened to be a location the other was using.).
This is definitely one of those things where it working with limited functionality doesn't mean that with a little more work/polishing it can behave like VMWare or user mode linux.
Besides, if you want to run linux and windows together, check out Xen Hypervisor. A much cleaner (and probably just as fast) solution. Just start bugging redmond to release a hypervisor aware version of Windows (or start writing tools to binary-patch Windows into being hypervisor friendly).
Actually, binary patching Windows to make it be more emulator/virtualizer friendly is not a new concept...
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
The article started "Looks like the Israel Defence Force may have done it again." I mistakenly assumed they murdered yet another enemy without a trial - silly me, it was just about Linux.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Er, partitioning is technical? Guess I've been living under a rock or something. Not, BTW, that I'm crazy about dual boot - the standalone solutions like knoppix are far superior IMHO.
C|N>K
Penguin-Does (penguin-does.com) is another one in the arena of 'Linux on Windows' programs... I heard that the company behind it has made some pretty good steps towards full X-Windows support, but I still can't rip/play my music CDs with it.
Let S_n = {nst+us+vt : s,t in Z \ {0}, u,v in {-1,1}}. For all n in Z where |n| > 2, Z \ S_n is infinite... right?
I have a film scanner. The nearest equivilent which *might* have linux drivers is over $1000 more. So, you can see why I don't just buy a different scanner.
So, why not just boot into windows, do my scanning and get out?
Because scanning a roll of film can take hours of off and on work. I don't want to to be stuck with Windows that whole time.
Wine (when it works at all) is of no help. It runs only apps, not drivers. Even VMware, when the host OS is Linux, is of no help.
1. Create linux QT app
2. Embed my QT app into a minimal colinux app
3. Send out my QT/Linux software on CD
4. Profit!
5. Thumb nose at Trolltech
6. Profit some more!
-Adam
If I could run AutoCAD on Linux, I would use it at work (for something other than a server).
There is an AutoCAD clone for Linux. Here's a quote from my Linux user group list. (I haven't used it, so YMMV)...
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:41:07 +0100
From: "BricsCad BackOffice" email-deleted
Subject: BricsCAD goes Linux
BricsCad, the market leader in low cost DWG CAD software, today announced the beta release of BricsCad for Linux. The product is based on the IntelliCAD kernel.
BricCad for Linux is an "almost clone" of AutoCAD(r). BricsCad uses the exact same DWG drawing format as AutoCAD(r). Drawings made by BricsCad can be read by AutoCAD(r) and the other way round.
BricsCad for Linux addresses the untapped group of individual and corporate professional CAD users in the LINUX community allowing them to use their operating system of choice without being locked out from the professional Engineering world and the DWG standard.
The full press release can be found on their website(s):
English version
French version
German version
Interested beta-testers are invited to contact BricsCad at linux@bricscad.com
And I might add that it seems to work too!
/.'ing for once...). There are two distributions "images" available from coLinux, and it sounds like the changes to get any distribution working within coLinux are quite minimal (I think it's mostly setting up the virtualized hardware drivers...).
I happened to be playing with coLinux for the first time this afternoon (beating the
It works easier than I expected. And it really does use regular binares. For instance, I've just installed X and KDE from the regular Debian package repositories.
I tend to think of this as a specialized, i.e. Linux Only, alternative to a VMWARE for Windows license. Free, and moderately easy to install - I'm sure that in time, it'll be a lot easier to setup.
Actually, there are version of X for Windows that don't require Cygwin (e.g. XWin32).
I think this is a great idea. It will allow more linux software to be developed, under the assumption that the target audience now will include also Windows users. Then, one day when the company tallies up its software expenses and sees that the only thing it pays for is the MS OS, and that this OS is only an emulation for free linux software, it could easily decide to cut Windows out - without really making any drammatic change for any of it's employees.
Unless of couse MS blocks this feature in later OS's...
The power of Christ compiles you!
There is basically one issue with dual booting linux and windows, and that is where to put your data.
I ran into this one some time ago, when I started running Windows inside VMWare on RH Linux. (Which, BTW, is WONDERFUL!)
My solution was to run Samba on the Linux host, and save all files that needed to be exhanged in the home directory of a user name that I logged into from the Windows side as well as from the Linux side.
The files interchange peacefully this way - It's normal for a process (say, precompiling an application) to involve steps performed on both platforms - For example, I might compile the app at the Linux command line, but use a Windows-based installer to make the final software distribution file.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
This is a dead end path!
wtf? I thought it was april fool's day all over again.
enjoy with a nice American pilsner.
There are no nice American pilsners. Just Miller.
Great screenshots. Is there a reason why the X11 window has a Cygwin title?
I mean, GnuCash? Who the heck uses this crap anyway.
The main thing is this seems to be a cool hack - I mean, getting two OS's to cooperate in ring zero.
It's neater than User Mode Linux - if it actually works.
I don't see it "transforming" anything - if for no other reason than Microsoft will move to block it if it starts to "transform" anything Gates has an investment in.
Depending on how it works and how you use it, it might be very useful for things like security (each OS doublechecking each other's actions - like some of the NASA space missions computers do).
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Threw this on MetaFilter a few hours ago; hope this helps clarify what's going on here. Thanks to the good Jason Spence for explaining most of this to me over fine tequila at Defcon a few years back :-)
:-)
===
OK, terrible terrible story. Nobody's going to contest that. My immediate reaction: "Yay, another whiz kid story. Kid probably rediscovered prefetching web pages."
Yeah. Then the CoLinux guy came up.
People, CoLinux is absurdly brilliant stuff, the kind of hardcore engineers get drunk about and laugh that "some psycho pulled off WHAT?!" regarding. I can say this from personal experience
To put it simply, most approaches that involve multiple operating systems sharing a processor require a significant degree of subordination. In the Cygwin model, the "Linux/Unix" way of requesting services from the operating system (open this file, give me that network connection) is translated to the Windows way through a library of functions. The mapping is pretty good, but like any translation, it's not perfect. Some actions, like starting new programs, are very very fast under Linux/Unix and are extraordinarily slow under Windows. Cygwin deals with this as best it can, but there's only so much it can do.
VMWare offers a different approach. Instead of translating Unix to Windows, VMWare creates a "virtual PC", complete with its own processor, motherboard, sound card, network card, and everything else. The child operating system -- Linux, for example -- gets a complete environment to manipulate, and VMWare handles the translation between what the child PC is asking to do and what the parent PC is actually capable of. This interface is much more isolated than what Cygwin offers -- memory, for instance, is not shared between the two environs -- but as such, the child operating system is freed of many of the particular quirks of the parent OS. The child Linux really is Linux, and can do everything Linux can do, because Linux is an environment for controlling a PC.
The only catch is that it's a virtualized PC, and VMWare needs to do alot of work to keep the two contexts separate -- and to emulate all the hardware resources that are normally "just there", but now need to be simulated. There's a 20-30% speed cut out of this. Also, switching contexts between parent PC and child PC is not a trivial thing to do, meaning it can only be done a certain number of times per second. This causes issues for some real time operations. Specifically, audio in VMWare is a problem.
CoLinux is something else entirely. x86 CPU's have the concept of Rings -- these are roughly analogous to privelege levels, in which certain classes of commands may be issued to certain components of the architecture. Lowest level code operates in what's referred to as "Ring 0" -- at this level of permissions, one can directly control the raw components of the PC, for better or worse. This is a gross oversimplification, but there's basically two things that live at Ring 0: A kernel, and device drivers (which are not entirely separate from the kernel). Kernels are basically a core set of commands that user software can execute to get things done -- create processes, read files, open network connections, and so on. Here's a list of Linux syscalls, at least from 2.2. Not on this list -- stuff like, "Send this block of memory to this device on the PCI bus, and tell the sound card to start emitting sound from that memory address on its internal buffer." That's what device drivers are for -- they get some kind of interface that userspace can talk to, and they do things with what they're given. Those things can be pretty much anything the underlying hardware can do -- stuff way deeper than "write this file" and "trace this process", and into the nuts and bolts of what the PC is -- a collection of wires and memory addresses. Normally, that's what a device driver does: It implements the requisite hardware calls to let some piece of equipment work.
Distributions.
Distributions put these things together for end-users to enjoy, and any recently updated distro worth it's beans has either Gnome 2.4 or the Bitstream Vera fonts. In my not-so-humble opinion, they are far superiour to the fonts in Windows. Unfortunately, however, they look pretty horrid in Windows, if you ask me.
Don't you think you're being pretty unreasonable saying Linux w/KDE or Gnome is unsuitable for anything like this (fonts) when it's already been addressed? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, download a better distro plz.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
How come people think this is good news. It takes away a lot of reasons to switch to Linux. You can all think that this will lead to people learning Linuxprograms. When the same people do not even know how to make their machine virusfree by updates, do you realy think they are going to run Linux programs?
The people who want to use it will already be with Linux and could even switch back to Windows, because their programs run in Windows.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
now they'll be able to "break" Linux... ;)
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Why imagine? Install Plan 9 and make your imagination become reality. It has been available for at least ten years, but ever since Lucent bought Bell Labs nothing has been done with it.
I keep saying the "big boys" - IBM, HP, Sun, etc. - need to lean on the peripheral manufacturers - or better yet, PAY THEM to do Linux drivers at the same time as Windows drivers. What can it cost to have somebody on staff to do this? Another $100K? Which some companies now demand from any third party wanting to develop a driver for their hardware?
I say it would be a cheap investment for IBM and HP to sell a lot more Linux boxes. Even if you assume they have no motivation since THEIR stuff already runs Linux, the point is that people want to add hardware to whatever they bought from IBM and HP - and they won't run Linux if it can't do that. So it is in IBM's and HP's interest to see that third party peripherals run on their OS.
Seems obvious to me.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Which of these do you get if you run Linux over Windows?
None of the above, of course.
If one simply needs a Open Source Office, that's what OpenOffice.org is for and there is a Windows version.
If there were a killer app for the general population that only ran on Linux and can't be ported, this might make sense. Name one.
This may be touted as a technical miracle, and it might be. But change the world? Looks more to me like a solution in search of a problem.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I did not RTFA, but wouldn't this make a good alternative SW firewall for windows? Setup all windows networking through coLinux and getting rid of Norto^H^H^H^H^H [random crummy firewall app] Or am I missing something?
I stopped using Windows and every other M$ product in 1995 when I left an M$ enslaved company to venture out on my own. From that time forward to this, everytime I am forced to go back to use Windows I am always struck by the fact that the Windows vaunted `friendliness' is a myth,
People are just used to it. Those of us who have successfully beaten the M$ addiction wonder what the attraction is. To me, I find Windows too limiting.
If the whole world would simply go "cold turkey" the world will soon be rid of that terrible dream called Microsoft that has been the main contributor to the fact that software technology is fifteen years behind where it ought to be.
There is no need for CoLinux or anything else along those lines. The cure is simply to stop using all Microsoft products and end the slavery and addiction.
I have three boxes OSX, Windows and Linux. I use all three and have to say it is all about the applications. Linux for server side is fantastic, even for development purposes. However as a general client OS Linux has a very LONG way to go.
When I compare my general client OS OSX I see what an ideal UNIX client is all about. I am even thinking that having people copy Windows is really the wrong way to do things.
Let me give an example. On the OSX box to do Windows file sharing there is a simple check box. From there the user's home directories are shared. Nowhere is there any feature to define the domain, security descriptors, etc. The OSX box defines default security descriptors.
The interesting bit is that Apple has determined for the average use that this is good enough. Frankly Apple is right. However, I wanted more and to do that I needed to edit the Samba configuration file. That is ok because I am a power user.
My point is that Windows forces everything to be editable using GUI dialog boxes and that makes for some REALLY hideous dialog boxes. Apple on the other hand does enough to make the system usable. The extras are up to the skill level of the user. The advantage of this approach is that you do not waste developer bandwidth adding unnecessary features that people do not want.
So I wonder if Linux should not follow the same path. Instead of copying Windows, why not look at the features that people want and create distributions geared towards those people. Sure people will argue, but what are the required features? Counter argument is that OSX is a better platform than Windows, and Apple managed to do it, why can't we?
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
in light of recent java events could something like colinux prove to be a new jvm?
if x can run rootless and you can write code to link windows desktop icons -> activating a linux program...
it promises alot less... "write once compile almost anywhere"... but its free (as in speech) and deliverable very soon.
imagine slowly migrating users to linux apps. they would only see the desktop icons... most of em would probably never know if one day you changed the os. (provided you put the pic of their kids/goofy inspirational photo in the root window again....)
For Windows running under Linux see Win4Lin from NetTraverse. It is 'only' a real Windows 98 SE or ME (or Win 3.11 or 95) but it works very well.
subj
/*
:-)
Not so fast, hombré.
`hombre' (man in Spanish) is written without any accent
*/
The screenshots showing Knoppix on top of Windows look promising. I think this project could become really useful in an office as a step towards a long-term migration to GNU/Linux.
Windows users:
Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
Does it have a Wise Installation Wizard? Does it require any knowledge of anything that looks vaguely dissimilar to Windows?
Then no, it's not going to change anything, because having to know even one little thing about Linux is just as equal as having to know it all. Most Windows users don't even know what it looks like and the only gnomes they have seen are in their gardens.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Does anyone(*) actaully need a separate /boot partition these days? I'm pretty sure that PC BIOSes have allowed bootloaders to access the disk past the first gigabyte, or whatever, since the late 90s...
/boot for reasons other than the usual then go ahead, I'm not telling you what to do with your system. :)
* In the general case, if you want RAID but don't trust RAID autodetection, or else have some other esoteric setup that demands a separate
I personally think this software has to overcome some big problems at the moment, but has a great potential for the future. I had it produce a kernel panic within 2 minutes after logging in. Also, it's way too slow to use more than an hour. Yet, after some more development, I think this will replace most of my Cygwin applications.
I set up windows to bridge the tun and eth device to make the linux vm connect to the local network. This runs perfectly!
*adds this article to bookmarks*
.sig: No such file or directory
Yeah, I have a 1.6 GHz pentium-M laptop with 1 GB of RAM. It handles VMware pretty well (and a host of other stuff). I run an X server (X-Win32) on Windows for the X clients from my guest OSes to connect to.
What I like about this colinux compared to cygwin is that it can mount filesystems. I find it convenient to have a large partition with an ext3 filesystem. That way I can access the data on it directly from any guest OS, as well as when I boot into linux natively. I'll have to try it out when I get a chance.
Linux will get installed more if it can "upgrade" a Windows installation. You insert the CD, run a Setup.exe and it then installs Linux, it migrates your email and network settings and keeps all your files.
Of course, for this to be possible it would require the use of Microsoft development tools (non-free), so for most distributions to remain free-software (beer and speech) they would need to have a separate Winstall disk.
From the article:
A member of the international open source community, Aloni developed CoLinux along with several Japanese programmers, collaborating over the Net. According to the Web site, they've written special core drivers for the host OS which modify the way the host OS receives notifications from the hardware - thus allowing both OSes to coexist peacefully - and run at a decent speed as well.
And from the VMWare site.
VMware Workstation works by enabling multiple operating systems and their applications to run concurrently on a single physical machine. These operating systems and applications are isolated in secure virtual machines that co-exist on a single piece of hardware. The VMware virtualization layer maps the physical hardware resources to the virtual machine's resources, so each virtual machine has its own CPU, memory, disks, I/O devices, etc. Virtual machines are the full equivalent of a standard x86 machine.
Well, as the article says, the trick is about virtualization of hardware. How does that differ from VMWare? I don't see how "IDF innovated again".
Holy water - Check
Stakes - Check
Crosses - Check
Abominations; 'git outta me way!
What's the point of running Linux under Windows? I can only see one purpose: it makes cross-development of applications a bit easier - and then it's not much better than cygwin. So you gain the ability to run Linux applications natively on Windows. So what? All of the good ones work on Windows anyway... OO.o, Mozilla, Apache, MySQL (I think). The only reason anyone runs those on Linux is because its faster (often) and more stable (almost always) than Windows. The article is a bit misleading in that it makes you thing you have Windows and Linux running in parallel... it's actually Windows running a Linux kernel. So you still can't get it to be any more stable nor faster than Windows. The other way around would be great: Have Linux run Windows applications natively. Wine is doing a good job, but they still have a long way to go.
If it weren't for fog, the world would run at a really crappy framerate.
Tell that to all the hardware I have, which doesn't say "designed for Windows XP". None of it works with windows, no matter if it's designed for Solaris or HP/UX.
While this is a really neat idea and it's cool to see someone get it working, I'm not very comfortable with it.
Why would a company let people install Linux natively when they can just run it under Windows?
I can certainly see my own workplace putting up exactly this argument.
Doesn't that mean we'll now have a less stable Linux that's slower and has all the Windows security vulnerabilities present?
Will Linux developers have to put up with complaints from people because the Windows end of things is breaking their software?
I don't like it. I can see where it might be useful, but for me the losses outweight the gains by a significant margin.
- MugginsM
Too bad this wasn't posted early, since no one on /. will see this now.
No
are belong to us :)
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
i've used linux briefly. it was cool for a while but when i couldn't get my scanner and asdl modem to work with it, i ran back to windows.
:)
i suspect linux will remain a geek's toy for a long time to come
Interix is a whole seperate subsystem that talks directly to the NT kernel, in parallel with the Win32 subsystem. Cygwin is a DLL kludge that rides on top of the Win32 subsystem.
I'm not sure I understand the difference between the Cygwin model and "a whole separate subsystem that talks directly to the NT kernel." I'm not trolling, just curious. I've done some work in Cygwin and found it surprisingly adept at handling things that I though Windows was incapable of doing. What can the interix (Windows Services for Unix) do that Cygwin can't?
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
You may be thinking of CAD operators. Real engineers don't use CAD much, we do engineering, not drawing.
(I do actually agree with your main point)
1. Pay for Windows ...
2. Install Linux for Windows
3.
4. PROFIT !!!
by being able to run linux in windows environment, regular users will be able to start migrating to linux.
the problem with right now is you have to use either. you can get emulation but to a certain extent.
by doing the opposite, you can slowly migrate software that you previously have in windows and run them in linux. once you are comfortable with it, you can remove windows altogether.
this will help us (as i am from a corporate) to be able to test new applications in linux *without disruptions* to the existing system. migration will be much lower and hopefully at the end, the tco for linux will be much much lesser because minimal migration costs will be needed. applications are running in linux, users already has experience in linux, etc.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
What is that old saying? "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear".
I hate sigs.
This is a terrible idea.
All this will do is help promote an incorrect sense of low Linux performance, additional installation complexity and low security to those evaluating Linux for the first time. There's already plenty of CD-bootable 'live' linux ISO's around that provide a much better evaluation platform.
I'm just waiting for all the skewed benchmark results because of the morons who try to do comparative benchmarks of Linux on a PC concurrently running Windows.
It will also give all those power-mad MIS people another way of forcing Windows onto linux users.
How is this different from a port of User-mode Linux?
My server
WTF? Geniouses are random. And this was not a big idea like the theory of relativity or something.
Oh. I forgot. Professor Shamir... Yes, yes. Well, 70% of the world's geniouses are spawning by generations from the Israeli Defence. I guess they must be doing their best super-genious projects secretly because *I*'ve never heard of any other geniouses. But, sure, Agent Mulder knows about it.
If there were a killer app for the general population that only ran on Linux and can't be ported, this might make sense. Name one.
Spoken like someone who hasn't tried to port that many apps.
Some people want to be able to get the actual work they're trying to do, done, not waste a day or two porting an app and it's dozen or so dependencies.
Cygwin is being used a lot these days. Some much so that I ended up with 3 conflicting versions of Cygwin on my computer as a result of installing various development environments and applications..... and I'm not even a software guy, I'm an EE!
Running Linux apps under windows can be a real PITA and this has the potential to be a great solution.
Life is too short to proofread.
about time? Man, it requires a genious to think about it. Big times for mankind and software development. Thanks to the israeli Defence and their spawning generations of geniouses, we are where we are today. Generous geniouses spawning by generations from the Israeli Defence, giving knowledge to mankind and bright ideas. And you're talking about NT2000???? Unless, software geniouses spawned from Israeli Defence work there, I wouldn't expect much. They are *already* famous for entire generations of geniouses.
Tenon's machten did something like this a decade ago on the mac ( but not linux ).
Isn't that an oxymoron?
I think it must be called LINE (Line Is Not an Emulator)
The goal must be to have vendors ship machines that don't have Windows on them at all. This is actually a step backward.
Linux or CoLinux isn't going to do anything for "regular folk" like myself here because it is far too overwhelming to dive into...
...and answer that if you want, but really unless things like that are BLATANTLY obvious, its not going to make a dent in computers run by people other than techies... (don't offer any patronising explanations, or comments on the state of peoples patience as you're trying to figure out how to make linux change the world.. i'm telling you...)
:P
CoLinux need to tighten up their website and offer some very clear and familiar installation software, and directions/explanations.
I only skimmed the page, but I don't even know if "colinux" is a linux installation or a shell for a linux installation
I wanted to get a copy of linux going so I could test out GIMP etc to try and replace photoshop, but I wouldn't know where to start...
Someone get some "linux is easy!" type websites going... set up some installation software for CoLinux and explain its workings with snappy wording like "you'll be up and surfing the net in linux within half an hour! follow our 3 step solution"
yes.. that really is whats required... people are too busy... we want EASY alot more than stable... and i wish microsoft and apple weren't the only ones offering this.. (oh how i wish!)
much love
Lachlan
AFAIK if you use LBA you will have problems booting from cylinders > 1024, and if you don't use LBA you won't.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe I can finally run PostgreSQL on my machine. My old Linux box finally died so I have nothing to develop/play with lately. I tried the windows proof of concept, but was never able to get it working and it messed up my existing cygwin installation.
The software you are installing for this hardware
TAP-Win32 Adapter
has not passed Windows Logo testing to verify its compatibility with Windows XP. (Tell me why this testing is important)
Continuing your installation of this software may impair or destabilize the correct operation of your system either immediately or in the future. Microsoft strongly recommends that you stop this installation now and contact the hardware vendor for software that has passed the Windows Logo testing.
----
It does make me wonder if XP Service Pack 2 is going to have a "fix" for this like the XBox did.
The funny thing is I think every driver I have, even for HP or D-Link products has instructions in their manual that mention this box appearing, the next stop is to "Click install anyway" and continue.
Cygwin does not allow developers to comfortably develop Linux apps on windows
The parent understates this point: You can't compile any linux app under Windows, unless you don't make any library calls or system calls. Perhaps CYGWIN provides basic text I/O libraries for gcc, I don't know. That's fine for toy problems, but not for industrial use.
So CoLinux on a machine means easier access to Linux for Windows developers: you don't have to set up a dual-boot configuration and then boot back and forth.
Easier Linux access === Faster Linux transition.
Maybe now I can final run all of my Linux games on Windows.
I keep getting told that somehow the rendering in Linux is actually supposed to be better than that of Windows. Nothing illustrates better the fanatical fanboyism some people display, because when I run the latest freetype, complete with bytecode interpreter and everything, and standard Windows fonts, I still get bizarre line widths, particularly in Ws, 2s, and other diagonals and curves. It's the ugliest thing I've ever seen, and apparently people completely ignore it, or they're just not paying enough attention to see it. I don't know.
You guys need to be checking Anti-Slash every day, because you keep modding up reposts. The commentary for the grandparent post says "those morons always upmod this stuff." I see a lot of troll accounts getting +5s lately.
So now we have to learn 10 different "distros." What's the damn difference?
On an unrelated note, "Joe Sixpack" is an annoyingly overused term around here. Not to mention, it's sort of inherently condescending. Just because we're geeks who spend hours trying to get our soundcards working doesn't make us better than someone who uses their computer only to chat with their jock friends.
1.) Don't do a goddamn thing to my fonts. My fonts are much nicer looking than Windows fonts ever were TYVM.
Yeah, check out those diagonal lines in characters that suddenly fatten up, or even disappear. I see them in capital Ws, digits, and other characters all the time in screenshots people show me to "prove" that somehow, Linux font rendering is magically supposed to be better than Windows. Sorry, but I have yet to see a 10pt Times New Roman in Linux look better than a 10pt Times New Roman in Windows.
Of course, OS X blows away everyone's font rendering anyway--if you want to be proud of anything, strive for theirs.
Certainly George Bush is another genious. I read it on a magazine. On an article. It sais that Bush is a genious. I wonder if George Bush was trained in Israeli Defence.
There is already a way to run Linux on Windows. Here are the steps:
1. Remove Windows.
2. Install Linux.
3. Run Linux.
----
Are we there yet?
I think it would be entirely more valuable if someone could make a great Windows emulator for Linux, like there is for Mac OS 9 [and maybe X too?].
I would run Linux as my primary OS if I had the option to run my Windows programs in the blink of an eye, at the click of an icon.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
It (Mandrake) also overwrites your MBR with its own bootloader without even asking! Awesome, that's what I call user-friendly!
First let me say, this program is absolutely AWESOME.
I'm a Windows user. Why? Because I love to play games, I use quite a bit of software for which there is no Linux clone, and I like the rapid response and eyecandy format that Windows provides.
Having said that, as an engineer, I've always wanted to get better at using Linux. Oh, sure, I can log on, cd, ls, updatedb, locate, man, and generally get my way around a linux system. But I don't know my way around a Linux box like I know my way around a Windows box. I spend all my time in Windows, so this is no surprise.
I don't want to run two boxes, and VMWare is dirt slow at running linux. I have a 2.4Ghz P4, and it's just frustrating to watch VMWare boot like it's running on a 250Mhz K6.
In comes CoLinux: In just a few short hours, I've installed the Debian distribution, installed KDE, and now have a full fledged KDE desktop running in Windows! Now I can use Windows AND Linux side by side, and finally have the oportunity to learn to use Linux the way I've always wanted to.
Now, I'm an engineer. Your average joe probably wouldn't get as far as I have gotten. So what needs to happen next?
If some bright programmer out there (I have no time, unfortunately) would write a server application for Linux and Windows that would connect to a client application in the other operating system and LAUNCH APPLICATIONS ON REQUEST FROM THAT CLIENT -- it would be the start of mass transition to Linux.
Imagine: You start Windows. In the background, the linux "box" starts up as a service. The Windows "box" is networked via Samba to the Linux drives. The Linux box is networked to the Windows drives. The Windows box starts an X-Server.
You click "START" in windows: Up pops all your favorite (hated?) Windows apps... ALONG SIDE YOUR LINUX APPS! You click a linux app. The shortcut causes the Windows Client to send a UDP message to the Linux Server to start that application. The Linux box starts the application, connects to the already running XServer on the Windows box, and up pops your Linux application!
Now imagine, your Windows user has come to love linux so much, he decides to switch to Linux. He's not ready to dump windows yet, but he wants to start using KDE instead of the Windows Explorer.
You set windows to connect to the Linux box at startup, and you have KDE running. Now you log into KDE, click the K-Start button, and up pops all your Linux apps -- with Windows apps right beside them! You click on a windows app, the same thing happens in reverse: Linux contacts Windows, Windows starts the app, up pops your windows app.
Even shortcuts to applications work in their respective OSes.
All data files are visible from either OS.
Finally, after months of learning to use Linux, our user finally reformats with Linux, goes fully secure (notice we're assuming this linux box is single user, and non-secure while being used from Windows to make life easier for our Windows user.) Now he runs Wine or VMWare to get access to the few remaining Windows applications he still has to have.
THIS is the key. THIS is what will let Windows users finally break into Linux. When my GRANDMOTHER can finally click START -> Programs -> Konquerer and be using Linux instead of Windows, THAT is what is going to change the world.
Oh, and of course, the Clipboards of the two OSes MUST interact. =)
It's a great day for Linux and Windows users alike.
-tENS0r
Windows 98SE did not come with ClearType fonts, jerk. Nor did Windows ME or 2k.
ClearType brand subpixel rendering technology is a feature of your font renderer, not of the fonts themselves. Here's how it works. (Summary: stretch outline horizontally, rasterize, blur horizontally, and gamma correct.) Even if you take old Win95-era TrueType fonts and drop them into Windows XP set to display on an LCD, they'll probably show up with sub-pixel AA.
It (Mandrake) also overwrites your MBR with its own bootloader without even asking! Awesome, that's what I call user-friendly!
Actually, thats not true. It clearly gives you options about how exactly you want to set up a dual booting system. (It just gives you an easy cop-out option, and let mandrake do its thing, which I did)
I feel like I'm missing something.
Is it just me, or is the guy responsible* for the software that was the subject of the article that sparked the whole thread sitting here with an unmodded post?
I don't know, +1 "Interesting," at least? That third paragraph sounds "Informative" to me, can somebody with mod points hook a brother up?
Do it for the children.
The Dalai LLama
...doesn't have a well-developed sense of irony... does this count?...
*This was to make the paragraph smoother. He seems pretty humble on the site he referenced; I'm sure he'd want it noted that he didn't do it by himself.
My sig could be your sig!
I've been saying for years that one of the most difficult things in adopting Linux, for Windows users, is an unfamiliar interface.
While running it under a PC emulator is all very well and good, it runs at a fraction of the equivilent speed it would run at on the host system.
Thus, a false observation of either speed or efficiency would be made, since the equivilent system would create so much lag. If you ran, for example, Open Office on a PC emulator as opposed to Win32 native, to demonstrate it for a client, they would say, naturally, that it is crap, because most pointy haired bosses don't know the restrictions involved. Sure, you could set up a seperate system, but they would respond negatively, thinking a seperate system would be the sum total of the case for upgrades.
However, if you can sheer away those limitations so it would run under Linux/Win32 accordingly, logic would dictate that without a hardware emulation platform as the intermediate limiting factor, and thus, the response would be more appropriate.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
What does this provide that Cygwin does not? Does it allow all Linux x86 binaries to run? That seems to be the only thing that is missing in Cygwin (except the power of Linux on its own).
:(
I guess the biggest issue is that the Windows Registry can still tank both systems at the same time...
running these two on separate hard drives at the least. that seems to work fine, sharing a drive has given us many issues which a second drive solves in each case.