Slashdot Mirror
Ask About Running Windows Software in Linux
There have been recent reports about programs from Israel, Canada, and The Philippines that let you run Windows software in Linux. Are they really new? Can they succeed? Is this whole effort worth the time and trouble going into it? CodeWeavers CEO and Wine maven Jeremy White ought to know, since he's been working to bring Windows software to Linux users for many years -- with quite a bit of success. We'll forward 10 - 12 of the highest moderated questions posted here to Jeremy, and run his answers as soon as we get them back.
What have been the most major hurdles in your projects (both past and present)? How were they handled in the past?
Is there any value in Windows-apps-on-Linux solutions which force you to own a copy of Windows anyway?
Gerv
http://www.gerv.net
So at some point Linux will work on and with more old hardware than the newest versions of Windows.
And will be able to use Wine to run crusty old applications better than the newest versions of Windows. (Microsoft's biggest enemy to getting people to use its new products has for many years not been any other company but its own installed base.)
For people outside first world corporate IT departments that transition time when Linux appears more attractive will be sooner. How soon?
How do you expect the transition to desktop Linux to play out?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Simple question that comes in mind, why would you want to do that in first place?
Most office suites have come far since their first release and most of them are pretty usable already.
Sure there are many custom programs that were written 15 years ago which source has been lost 10 years ago and porting to other platform isn't possible.
But question arises, should you keep running those or migrate to some other software and renew the hardware running aswell?
For many people/companies this is question of expense, if the migration process takes too long, it possibly means losing lots of money during downtime if everything doesn't go as smoothly as planned.
From my point of view, this running windows applications on linux is just some insane hype term that just won't die away.
I don't want to see linux running outlook express and thus spreading all email viruses as well as those n+1 unpatched windows boxes out there.
Would people actually install important patches to windows software running on linux?
The platform difference would probably cause thinking like "hey, I'm running linux, I don't need to install that upgrade", and thus another million spam drone boxes appear.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Because it's not an instant change, its a process not an event. It'll take a while until comparable (OSS) applications can compite with the Windows versions, we have OpenOffice but if you "must" run MS Office you can use Wine for example, and then you are no longer "locked-in" Windows, so actually the existence of these facilities (Cross Over Office, Wine..) does not continue the "lock-in" but in fact help to end it.
Well, for one, why fix what isn't broken? A lot of apps, like Office, have lived for so long and gone through so many iterations, why do you want to start from scratch and try to compete with it?
And, even if you do make a superior product, 95% of businesses use word's proprietary 'doc' type file. Instead, you can spend half the time and effort to port it over, meaning businesses wouldn't have to change much software for your average joe business user, but they get to move the OS over to something more stable and secure.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
-- ... :)
....
.NET on Linux .. then why did they write a VM that builds with linux ?. (before you say anything , their GUI stuff are all wine based).
What I want to know is, if I install Mono, will I have to cease relations with my computer until it goes away? Now how did that get in this thread
Hmm.. I wonder if the software patents Miguel talks about might affect Mono itself
Oh, well they're using Wine to run
Wouldn't it be better more productive to bring Linux functionality to Windows (in an intuitive way, unlike Cygwin) to make that 97% aware of the potential their computer holds?
It seems to me that telling someone "Use this system with a steep learning curve; it's a lot better and most of your Windows programs will run a lot of the time." is a lot less likely to work than admitting a lot of people will find Linux daunting, and trying to meet those people half-way
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
How does a project like Wine protect itself from Microsoft building compatibility insurances into its OS and App code? In other words, MS is legally obliged to provide an OS available to third-party developers; are they also obliged to keep their Apps to be running /runnable on other systems?
Most importantly perhaps, if/as MS shifts to an Internet based deployment mechanism, are they obliged to sell-to or patch apps on Linux-based platforms?
If the answer to much of the above is no/sort-of, is an MS-Office 2K era bundle of software maybe sufficient for a few years as MS will maintain backward compatibility for a good while?
I like arbitrarily lynching people without any actual evidence of wrongdoing as much as the next guy. but I'm just saying....
How scary is Longhorn for WINE / CO? What problems does it introduce, if any?
I think the exact opposite will be true, here.
Its best to explain as an example:
Suppose OSOffice is an open source competitor to MSOffice.
Good sys-admin Charlie finally convinces management to convert all machines from Windows to Linux. By putting in Wine, the business users still have MSOffice and can do their jobs regularly, but they pay less money for the operating system, and still gain a stable and secure operating system in the process.
Eventually, Eugene, the marketing director, plays around in the new operating system and finds OSOffice. It can do the same things, and actually a few nice things that MSOffice can't. He plays around with it, and eventually switches to the new app. He convinces so co-workers to do the same. Before long, most of the employees are using OSOffice instead of MSOffice, and they drop MSOffice in favor of OSOffice (and save money).
Converting people from MS to Linux isn't a "drop ms and use linux" solution. Its a slow process that needs helping. Wine is one of those 'helpers.'
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
HOWEVER. I for one think Linux has a long way to go before it can be used be Joe and Jane CompUSA customer. Simple things are missing from many distros that end up requireing extensive work to add. Untill the end user dosn't need to mess around in the kernel code it will not be acceptable. For example.
I'm building a PPTP server, which should be simple.
1. Debian has a package for Poptop. However I want to use MSCHAPv2 which requires that the kernel support MPPE (why the hell is this in the kernel?).
2. There is a kernel module for MPPE for Debian. However it needs a 2.4.x kernel.
3. Debian by default installs a 2.2.x kernel.
4. Installing a 2.4.x kernel over the default Debian install kills Lilo.
5. Installing with the 2.4.x kernel from the Debian installer breaks the included driver for the 3COM NIC in the server.
6. Vodka makes all my troubles go away for a while.
7. GOTO 6
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I see that process as more likely to work the other way round, and I'm sure I've seen cases of this reported on Slashdot and elsewhere - OpenOffice (sorry, OSOffice) running under Windows is the first step towards change - when the application software has been gradually phased over to open source, there's no point in paying the premium for Windows licenses when there's no software left that requires Windows to run.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
The other responses answer this well enough, but let me make it simple:
For many reasons, it's hard to switch, plain vanilla, from Windows/Office to a Free set of OS + applications. Any tool that aids a gradual transition is, most likely, a Good Thing.
For my office work, I cannot plausibly switch away from Office right now without a major productivity hit, mostly due to file format issues (and some VBA scripts that would take time to re-create in OOo). It isn't right, but that's the way it is. I could, however, switch away from Windows if I could still run Office well enough from time to time.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
The Windows compatibility of OS/2 did hinder its adoption to some extent, but probably helped it more than it hurt. I for one ran OS/2 because for my work it was a more stable way of running Windows apps while letting me take advantage of advanced features of OS/2 apps as they became available. Heck, I used to run Apache and Perl on OS/2!
OS/2 ultimately failed because the IBM didn't market it well and couldn't break the barrier that Windows bundling deals formed. Linux won't suffer this same kind of fate in part because nobody and everybody owns it. Linux couldn't die if it wanted to! I don't know if Linux will ever be much on the desktop in the US, but I suspect that in the rest of the world, Linux on the desktop will become the standard. That's the scenario that Microsoft is most concerned about.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
OK, I know that is somewhat idealistic, but hear me out. When someone goes to do something they want to be able to use what they think is the best tool for the job. It doesn't really matter on what grounds they've made that choice - whether it's objetively better, whether it's the one they've always used and are comfortable with, whether it's that latest in thing, whatever. They want to be able to run their chosen app on their chosen OS.
Personally, I don't really care whether someone uses MS Office or Open Office as long as their happy using what they're using. I would, however, like to be able run Dreamweaver, Fireworks and Photoshop reliably under Linux because then I have the option. If other people are happy running open source equivalents then great. But regardless of whether Gimp is better than Photoshop, I know which I'm better at using Photoshop so that's what I'd rather use.
Working on Windows compatability is a way of reducing lock-in and promoting competition as it removes restrictions of what can run where. That way the best products should be most successful, not merely the ones that have already got market share or have managed to tie people in whether they like it or not.
>>There have been recent reports about programs from Israel, Canada, and The Philippines that let you run Windows software in Linux. Are they really new? Can they succeed? This is a late April fool, right? Ye, it's called XWindows--runs windows on top of Linux just fine.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
One major problem I have with people who are currently on windows is: Financial and tax software. Microsoft Money doesn't work in Crossover Office. I know that Quicken 2002 works, but often people don't like switching after settling on a financial suite, and a lot of people use Microsoft Money. Are you planning to try to get these certain problem, and popular, applications to work in the next Crossover Office? I feel that if applications like those seamlessly worked in linux, a lot more people would be able to transition to linux.
How about TurboTax for the web? Works on most everything...
By putting in Wine, the business users still have MSOffice and can do their jobs regularly, but they pay less money for the operating system, [...]
.... this has improved a lot, but still apps running wine are far from feeling "native"!
hmm, not so. when working almost solely with one or two applications the stability of the OS might well be less important than the stability/ease-of-use of those two apps.
beginning with w2k microsoft has vastly improved the stability of their OSs and apart from huge documents the office suite works fairly stable itself.
wine on the other hand has more than just a few quirks, especially when running such a complex software as MSOffice. therefore the stability argument won't hold (in my opinion) in this case! also, MSOffice running under wine will have problems with some menus, icons, animations,
Eventually, Eugene, the marketing director, plays around in the new operating system and finds OSOffice. It can do the same things, and actually a few nice things that MSOffice can't. He plays around with it, and eventually switches to the new app.
no, I don't think so! although OpenOffice is becoming a veritable alternative to MSOffice, I am pretty sure that the incentive to change from MSOffice to OOffice is just not there. it might have some additional features, but it might also lack some or just have important functionality in other places or with another philosophy so that the cost of switching (learning to use a new application) is higher than the functional benefit.
Converting people from MS to Linux isn't a "drop ms and use linux" solution. Its a slow process that needs helping. Wine is one of those 'helpers.'
I couldn't agree more, but neither is MSOffice a good example for this effect nor does this refute the parents implication that being able to run commercial windows software might diminish the need for native linux application, be they commercial or free!
jethr0
Why dedicate time (and presumably money) to continue the lock-in Microsoft Office and similar apps have in the workplace
Because the lock exists. Wishing it away won't change things. Contrary to popular belief, the world will not beat a path to your door if you build a better mousetrap. Not if everyone uses the old mousetrap, it works "good enough", and your new mousetrap won't fit through standard doors.
In the business world migrating desktops from Windows to anything else is problematic at best. Do you have any idea how many companies run proprietary desktop applications? For which they may not have the source (or it was lost long ago or they no longer have developers for the app)? Or even if they do have the source and the developers, how long do you think it would take to port the app from Windows to Linux? There's also the legion of niche programs that run under Windows, and the volumes of Excel macros and the like. Most businesses will kindly decline to move their desktops to Linux when the finance department informs management that they won't be able to bill customers anymore.
Home use means games -- both educational and entertainment. WINE and TransGaming are getting better, but they're still a long, long way from complete here. And the compatibility list is starting to slide backwards as more games utilize DirectX 9, which hasn't been touched in Linux yet. There's also the minor issue that Joe Schmoe wants to be able to buy a program off the shelf from CompUSA or Amazon or wherever, bring it home, put in the CD, and have it install. Why should they need to know if it's Linux or Windows? Why should they care? You can dismiss Joe Schmoe if you'd like -- it just means that you don't really care if Linux takes over the desktop or not (which is fine, but then this entire thread is irrelevant to you; that's not the subject at hand). Because it won't unless these issues are addressed.
Same situation with Photoshop. GIMP, although powerful, is downright painful to use - especially for beginners. If Linux could run Office and Photoshop, it would probably be a lot easier to migrate end-users from Windows to Linux.
If Microsoft were to release more source code (legally, not the leaked source from a while back), or if Microsoft approached the Wine team and offered access to portions of the Windows source code, would you accept it? What if it involved an NDA or adding non-GPL portions to Wine?
SmashTech - No smashing of tech involved
I've seen people saying "This linux stuff is hard, it's not for me.." after looking at fluxbox and gnome interfaces and trying to find that start menu... What are the chances of them using linux?
2007, no wait 2009 er what was that again? Sorry but your question just doesn't make much sense or even seem very fair for that matter. This you would know within 2 minutes of Googling the subject. Nobody knows the answer to that question. You might have well have asked What is the Timeline for World Peace?
To give you some sort of answer even though I don't really know if you deserve it is this. The only way there will be 100% compatability is when Microsoft completely Open Sources their OS's. Until then you have to use something like VMware which works but can be slow depending on the app and Wine which works for only some specific apps but is improving all the time.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
How about first finding out that it is, in fact, a "ripoff"
Let's see here...
Seems pretty compelling to me.
but I'm just saying...
Just saying what? That you work for Project David? Seems that way.
Forgive me for posting a serious reply to a joke, but:
There's no paradox. Not only is there room for more than one significant OS (say 60% Windows, 40% Linux), but OS use is not mutually exclusive. That is, it could be 80% Windows, 30% OS X, 20% Linux. Any pie chart that shows OS use adding up to 100% is either oversimplified ("primary"? what does that mean?) or wrong.
CoLinux (the "Israel" link in the article) is for running Linux under Windows - not the other way around.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
What, if any, are the shortcomings in the Linux API's that make implementing Windows API's more difficult then they should be, e.g., sound, graphics, filesystem, etc.? Are you seeing any efforts to address these shortcoming?
Lots of people seem to think that compatibility with windows applications is a "Killer Feature" for linux.
I fear it could "Kill" the linux developer community.
OS/2 was highly windows compatibile, and this lead to people not developing application for OS/2 -- they could just build it for windows, and it would work on OS/2. People never took advantage of the more powerful APIs and other tools available in OS/2.
From a developer point of view, developing for OS/2 made no sense, if I developer for OS/2 -- I get that market, if I developer for Windows -- I get TWO markets.
Do you feel this is a valid concern?
One thing I think that people miss in this Linux/Windows argument is the following...
We have a model of a successfull migration from one captive OS to another newer one.
And that's from the Classic MacOS to MacOS X.
What made that possible is the following:
- Support of Legacy Apps.
- A familiar user interface
- Easy install of new applications.
- Seemless operation of legacy apps.
So, I think for Windows users to be able to transition to Linux, they'd need to be able to run their older Windows apps as seemlessly as possible, and have at least as good an experience (as a user) in using Linux as they do Windows.
So that means more polish on the interface. Easier installation of programs (no user wrestling with dependancies. A smart installer, just installs the app. Click install, answer any necessary questions and it works! That's what Windows and MacOS X do.)
MacOS X was nowhere 4 years ago. But is now a mature and stable alternate OS. Easily as powerful (if not moreso) than Windows. Very similar to Linux, except the level of polish is present in OS X that is NOT in Linux.
If I had a Linux Distribution I could run out of the box, and use as easily as MacOS X, but run Windows apps on it, instead of Classic MacOS apps... You bet, I'd ditch Windows 2k/XP in a heartbeat.
I'm running MEPIS and Linspire on two boxes now. But the experience just isn't as smooth as Windows/MacOS X.
Give me that smoothness on a Linux Base, and I'm sold.
Target Windows 98 for WINE, and get that running smoothly and seamlessly, and then upgrade it to Win2k/XP functionality while the users USE the thing.
Targeting a moving target is why we still don't have a version of WINE that is complete.
IANAL, but I believe that if the apps are being released under the GPL, then the onus is on the publishing body to ensure that there is no infringing code in the project, to this extent all contributions must be traceable to the contributor. If code in this situation was found to be infringing, then the trail would lead to whomever contributed the infringing code. If this person was found to be working for MS then I don't see how ms could continue to sue. Obviously the project would then need to cleanroom code a workaround to the infringing parts
My other OS is also FreeBSD
I respectfully disagree.
Most apps that cause problems are simply too moronic to do a sane version check, and cannot deal with higher version numbers,
but will work properly as long as you can make the emulator pretend it is version X, where X is the expected version for that app.
Wine has an option for this; mainly they go for NT type windows compatibility, but you can change the option reported, which does affect certain things... definately the dos emulation has come a long way but still isn't up to say... dosemu or dosbox.
It might end up a PC emulator, but the fact it emulates the API's means it is much much faster than say... vmware or bochs...
[Wine Mailing List Lurker]
so far you've shown it might be Wine
Seems pretty convincing to me. Sure, the man standing in the hallway with the bloody knife in my home *might* be my wife's killer, but hey, that's just speculation...
Please, explain what would constitute "proof" for you. Because despite the overwhelming evidence pointing directly at it, you seem to insist that the president of the company come right out and say "we copied it", and nothing else is acceptable. You're not One of Them, but you're obviously wearing blinders.
you haven't shown why that's a violation of anything
It's not about viotaing licenses. It's about ethics, and passing off someone else's years of work as your own miraculous technology. For that reason alone, Project David is a ripoff.
anybody can take it, rename it... and sell it
Such blissful ignorance. Must be nice, really.
As other AC's have pointed out, nobody is harping on Project David for violating licenses. All of the "Project David is a ripoff!" messages refer to the unethical nature of their release, and not license violations. But you already know they're a bunch of unethical people out to make a buck, so you can't very well defend that, now can you?
Go ahead and release your own version of some popular OSS program with no added functionality, and issue a few press releases about your breakthrough technology. I'm sure you'll make your dollar, and you can just ignore those faint mutterings of dissent.
Hmm. I wasn't aware that AC's were blocked from reading back up the thread....
Those things.
But let's wait till we can prove it first, or we'll just end up coming across like a bunch of paranoid and immature zealots.
We're talking about asking questions here. If we run into it what do we do about it? That's a question that supposes it's possible to do these things, not necessarily that David is doing this and what should we do to them in response.
They haven't done anything wrong at all, except earned some bad PR by badmouthing Wine while apparently using it themselves.
It seems that your idea of "wrong" and mine do not coincide. I'd say trying to secure VC dollars by passing off someone else's work as your own is wrong. I'd say that disparaging WINE while using it as the secret ingredient in your own product is wrong.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Yes I have used X over a 14.4 modem. It works just fine so long as you understand that graphics will be slow. netscape 1.1n (IIRC 2.x was in beta but we didn't have it at school) worked though, even if it was a little slow.
Try that with windows... you can't as far as I can tell, you not only have to take the one netscape window you want, but the entire desktop. Compare a small X window to a large desktop with a tiny window that you care about.