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."
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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?