Slashdot Mirror
Windows Compatability on the Linux Desktop
davecb writes "O'Reilly has been kind enough to publish one of my
how-to articles,
Windows Compatability for the Linux Desktop, about dealing with that 'one last annoying program
than only runs on Windows'. The answer? Run it under Linux and win4lin, and never venture onto the Windows desktop at all. Especially don't run programs via dual-boot, which tempts you to stay and use all those other wonderful programs like Outlook...
Run it under Linux and win4lin, and never venture onto the Windows desktop at all.
Except, like, every time you run a windows application through win4lin. win4lin is just a virtual machine! You still need to install an authentic copy of Microsoft Windows on your machine. Although there is a big usability difference, there is not philisophical difference, as the summary seems to imply.
Why don't you just run windows if you need to run windows applications? They'd probably run better.
Linux is great for being productive, but when you want to DL some trivial game and waste hours upon hours... You just can't beat a windows machine for that...
And I hate MS...
Of blankness, I know nothing.
I'm not trying to start a big flame war here but my killer Windows app is Visual Studio.NET 2003. If Microsoft put half as much work into their OS as there is in Visual Studio the computer usability world would be a much better place. And if there was a Linux app that had comparable features I would switch over completely in a second (even if I had to pay for it).
Chaos will always win out over order because chaos is more organized
I don't think they are talking about this kind of software.
Some company release their software only for Windows, and if you really need this software and nothing exist to replace it, it can be a good solution before they release a Linux version (or someone else do).
wtf.n0x.org
mIRC is one of the few bulwarks of Win32 shareware to still be going strong, and it's not by accident. As best I can tell, it's the most versatile and certainly the most popular and well-rooted IRC client in the Windows world, with ever improving features, scripting capabilities, etc. AIM, while proprietary, is free as in both beer and speech for the time being... And hasn't been treating tagalongs like gAIM or Trillian with too much hostility in recent times. Would gAIM or Trillian be as popular as they are if they didn't operate with the network that AOL has established for AIM?
Criticize malware and poor mail clients all you like, but there are some Windows apps that are shining examples of what software should be and do. IMO, both mIRC and AIM fall into this category. I do wish that Trepia was more popular and its network more stable, though
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
I think the idea is that there are some programs that are really important for some people, and there are no alternatives in *nixland. If someone can switch over because those programs now work without booting into Windows, that mean one more full-time linux user.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
One word : driver.
Explain me how I could get a driver for this under Linux while I already have one under OSX (there's also one for Windows).
The more we'll go, the more we'll see that Linux is not Windows challenger as much as OSX is the challenger of the Linux+Windows pair.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Because people have massive amounts of special purpose or inhouse developed applications that will never get enough developers intrested to spontaniously develope them for Linux.
Wine makes win32 apps almost cross-platform. You can develope windows applications while never even touching a windows box as a developer nowadays.
You can write it, compile it, and test it inside linux and have a good chance that it will run just fine in any Windows version.
This way a orginization can develope applications that work equally as well in Linux and in Windows... and in Longhorn.
Helps with acceptance of Linux desktops, once peoplr are able to pick and choose between what OS they want to use irregardless of the quality of the applications or types of applications then Linux can compete with Windows based on the merits of the platform (and free software in general) alone.
Businesses rely on a lots of weedy little applications, generally nobody has the time or desire to recreate them just because they want to change OSes. What is the point? If it's done perfectly then it's time wasted, and if it doesn't work then your back to were you were before you even wasted your time, or worse.
But if I can just do a mput thru a ftp site for any generic *.exe file or setup program and have it work the first or second time, can't you see the advantage in that?
Win4lin does its job quite well.
Having a non trivial amount of old 16 windows code, win4lin allows you to keep all those old aps that will not be ported in the near future, while living in the Linux world.
It's not 'perfect' (It needs a patched kernel), but works fine and without problems.
What's in a sig?
This still doesn't fix the problem of games under linux, unless someone's managed to port DirectX 9 and hardware-accelerated drivers for the major graphics cards...
Well I've got karma to burn, so I'll speak my mind:
If you haven't used windows recently, maybe you should try. It's actually gotten much faster and more stable, and it's actually very easy to cut out a lot of the bloat with just a few settings.
Yeah, linux is very fashionable for the technological elite to use, but what actual benefits do you get from using it as a Windows replacement. Compare to Windows XP Professional:
1) Is it *really* more stable? How often can you *really* get the BSOD to come up in XP? I haven't managed yet. Can you get the uptime I've experienced with Windows on Linux? Probably. Can you get the same uptime and still have sound support? Maybe. Can you do it with the grand total of around 2 hours of configuration necessary?
2) Is it *really* more secure, or does it just invite fewer attacks? Yes, I know Outlook is terrible, but that's not the actual Windows OS, nor does it need to be installed.
3) Is all the extra aggravation *really* worth it? Yeah, you're extra cool for running Linux and you're sticking it to the man, but why?
Don't get me wrong; Linux is great for a server environment and a viable alternative when you have limited hardware and only need certain limited programs, but here at Slashdot it seems to be the solution to everything.
For reference, I'm a Computer Science student and work as a programmer in the summers. My home computer is Windows XP Professional running on a pentium 4 1.7 ghz and my work computer is a pentium 3 450 mhz. I've managed to get some pretty snappy performance on my work computer by running xfce or blackbox (I prefer blackbox) as long as I don't run more than one or two real programs.
I basically run the same few programs on both computers (emacs, mozilla firefox, aim/gaim, winamp/xmms) most of the time. Granted, it's a little unfair because my home computer is three times the computer of my work computer, but I think I get a lot more than 3 times the benefit out of it.
Flame away.
The reason people still use Outlook, is multiple.
It syncs with most things, no lets rephrase that, most things sync with it. Phones, pda's etc, all will come with some way on syncing with outlook. Until all the Ximian's etc, can say the same, people will want to use Outlook. The other reason is group calendaring, there are alternatives to Exchange, but getting big corporates to move to them, is another matter. Getting small company's who already have a license for exchange 2000, to move to xxx product, which is going to cost them money, and can't be shown easily to offer real world benfits, is REALLY difficult.
Same with Project, same with Visio, same with SolarWinds Engineers tool kit, now I'd love open source versions of these, especially the last (and no, nmap and mrtg don't quite do the same) then I can use FreeBSD or Linux 100% of the time.
I'll burn karma for this but... Windows XP is not bloated compared to your average Linux distribution. The amount of extra programs and utilities you get when you do a default install in say debian or red hat tops that of XP. Sure, you can choose not to install any of them but the same rings true for XP.
Well, first, it takes less time to write an emulator than a Linux version of every Windows program somebody would want to use.
Since there are so many Windows-emulation applications available, it appears that a demand is present. Remember, this is for a 'linux desktop.' Your average 'linux desktop' user probably isn't savvy enough to research OSS alternatives... or program their own version.
To be quite honest, some Windows applications outdo their open-source counterparts. People will use what works best for them, and who can argue against doing that?
My first post instinct was to ask why anyone would bother trying to get anything that's buggy windows to run on anything Linux. But then I read the second post.. and the third... and so on...
There is a lot of software out there that doesn't run on linux natively that only runs on windows.
But you have to keep in mind why Microsoft killed Netscape and tried to kill Java. The desktop application environment is being replaced by the webtop application environment and there isn't anything they can do about it.
So, if there is some project/application that you want to run under Linux that only runs in Windows, don't rewrite it first to run under Linux as in Gnome or KDE, but write it to run under Apache plus whatever you need. It might be more appropriate to run it under web pages.
Good examples of these are anything to do with corporate financials, email, or planning/scheduling. Bad examples of this are going to be anything that isn't really shared, like Instant Messages, IRC, or other personal user specific applications.
Correct. The grandparent's suggestion "just devlop [sic] a better solution" (in Linux) is not always a trivial task. It may actually require thousands of man-hours for any program of some merit. On the other hand, it'd certainly be worth it for the benefit of the Open Source community to match a few of the Windows killer apps. (The Linux equivalents should be called "Windows-killer apps" ;-)
I made the transition to Linux half a year ago, and haven't looked back. However, I've got this wonderful genealogy program "The Master Genealogist" (TMG), that only runs under Windows. The version I use is the old 16-bit one, a FoxPro 2.6 application. My present solution is to use it on my old laptop, which is running Windows 2000. I haven't managed to make it run under Wine. I was on the brink of purchasing Win4Lin some time ago, but their Web Shop messed up the transaction.
If anyone can tell me the easiest way to make this old FoxPro app run under Linux, I'll be much obliged.
And please, don't tell me that there are real alternatives to this program already under Linux, because there aren't. Both LifeLines and Gramps may be great in their own right, but for me they just don't cut it. I've tried both, and it feels like stuffing yourself into a Nissan Micra when you're used to drive around in a Cadillac.
I used to be a sceptic. These days, I'm not so certain.
The solution that I introduced to the company I work for a few years ago was to run an old box with Windows 2000 Server on it as a terminal server. We had a guy running VMWare and putting up with trying to get it to work again with every kernel update and this eliminated all the hassle.
I'm sure there are commercial terminal services clients for Linux, but we run rdesktop. Since we started using it rdesktop has included support for RDP5 which supports 16 bit colour, so with a Windows 2003 server ( we have upgraded ) you get a reasonably nice looking windows desktop. Audio seems to go mostly too, not that its needed for a couple of minutes worth of checking some html renders in IE or talking someone through how to setup outlook express.
If a windows only accounts package or similar is keeping you from running Linux on your desktop this could be a good solution, the only negative is possibly the Windows server licensing is a bit steep for some situations.
I am a lawyer and this constitutes legal advice and I shall indemnify you against any losses arising from taking it.
I'll try to address this without it sounding like the "zealot".
I have had serious problems with 2000, and can't afford to purchase XP... so call me cheap. Makes me want to choose linux.
Perhaps the OS is actually just a smaller target for security threats... so call me pragmatic. Makes me want to choose linux.
I installed my distro to nearly exactly where it is now in about 20 minutes. It runs faster, looks prettier, costs less, does everything I ever do on a windows system, and requires less work to get it moving the way I want. Call me lazy...
Makes me want to choose linux.
I don't think people who use windows are morons. I don't even pity them. I'm not really worried about sticking it to the man. I'm no crazy linux guru. Best of my understanding, the only place it seriously lacks is in video gaming... but I don't play video games.
Now, maybe someone could create a knoppix type distro that has some super cool video game that only works on linux. It might work as an inroad into the gaming market.
First I'm going to say I understand COMPLETELY how stupid this may sound, and in reality IS. But please show some patience and try not to mod me into oblivion.
I've seen suse boxes at local computer stores several times and they always look low grade to me, like buying a music cd with an obviously injet on paper insert.
Now one shouldn't judge a book by it's cover and all. But joe sixpack will quite often do just that.
I was just wondering if suse wouldn't do alot better with a snazzier box.
The reason I'm responding to the above poster is because he called it polished and I've always had the impression Suse wasn't so focused on desktop slickness and ease of use so much as underlying tech solidness. It took me a while to realize the box is why I'd made that (quite possibly wrong, deffiniately groundless from my knowledge of suse) assumption.
Well I'm just being silly and probably readin my own personal impressions into the general case. But I thought I'd throw it out and see if was just me.
Mandrakes box looks like polished and red hat like stuffy bussiness software to me fwiw.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Yeah, linux is very fashionable for the technological elite to use, but what actual benefits do you get from using it as a Windows replacement.
Freedom. People like to talk about technology but forget why the whole thing started.
If running linux and windows in parallel tempts you to stay on windows and not use linux, then by all means - use windows.
You should use the OS you like best. If the parrallel installation does not tempt you to use more linux then either there's (still) something wrong with linux on the desktop or windows is in fact (still) the better desktop OS - at least for you. And you're who should matter to you.
Stick to windows.
1. Is there an application that you just have to have that runs on one operating system?
If yes, you have no choice. Change your life or live with it.
2. Do you want to just use the computer or want to fool around with the internals?
If you just want to use it as a tool, go out and buy something from Apple. Yes, they are more expensive at first, but they last longer (unless you have a dual USB iBook, of course), are trivial to use, don't get viruses, look great, and you can always run Linux on them if you change your mind. The only drawback is the lack of a good, free office package: OpenOffice.org for OS X just isn't there yet, and it looks like we're going to have to wait at least a year. Apple should have addressed this problem earlier.
If you want to play around with the computer for its own sake, you want Linux. If you are buying a computer from scratch, still buy an Apple, because the hardware is great. Then, install either Gentoo or Yellow Dog. If you have a computer sitting around, just install Gentoo. You will learn all kinds of stuff, and the system will work like greased lightning.
Notice there is only one case where you might get Windows: If there is an application that you really, really need and that only runs with Windows. The chance of that is getting pretty small for normal people -- I have had lots of fun point out that OpenOffice.org can export directly to PDF whereas MS Office can't. And Firefox and Thunderbird are better already than anything that Microsoft or Apple can offer. In about a year...
For me, it's when things start to go wrong that the differences really stand out. Killing an errant process which is stealing RAM and cycles from the system is rarely successful in XP et al; if it does die eventually, don't expect to be able to run a new instance of it until you've rebooted! A simple system running software and hardware put together by Dell, for example, runs XP very nicely thank you. Try pushing the enevelope a little and it all starts to fall apart.
Ok, I have a dual boot Windows XP (Home) and Fedora Core 1.
1) Linux is *much* more stable. I can count the amount of times I have needed to cold reboot it on one hand. Windows BSODs quite often, usually when switching users. It can also get into a state where one program is using so many resources that Alt-Ctrl-Del takes *ages* to display the task manager.
2) Linux appears more secure, probably because there are no viruses, trojans, spyware, etc. Windows is forever being taken over by spyware/adware. I have to run web filtering software just to keep the machine running ok. Security through obscurity is still security...
3) What extra aggrivation? The only thing I have a major problem with is USB mass storage. On Linux, more work may be done to set things up, but on Windows I seem to spend all my time chasing Spyware/Adware/Viruses. Linux therefore requires far less maintanence, but maybe a bit more set-up. That's fine by me.
Performance: Linux beats Windows by miles, no exact benchmarks, but things feel far more responsive, which is what people really mean when they feel that their computer is slow.
Oh yes and you would get more that 3 times the speed out of it. Proccessor frequency is not the only thing involved in the speed of the computer. P4 will be faster that P3 at the same MHz, and I bet the P4 has more RAM and a faster hard disk, what about the video card?
I'm a graphics/video production student, and "heavy-weight" software like Photoshop, Maya/MAX, Painter, Premiere, After Effects, and so forth are a major part of my computing. I'd like to try Linux, especially because of HeroineWarrior's Cinelerra, which I'd like to get some experience with, and support. But I can't live without Photoshop/MAX, and really don't want to have to pay for a Linux liscense of Maya (the only one of these programs for which I think Linux support natively is even an option) unless I'd be paying for an upgrade anyway, and even then I'm nervous about being locked into an OS I'm not that experienced with.
Yes, I know Linux has GIMP and FilmGIMP and Blender, but in all honesty, while I like the idea of Blender, I need the featureset I'm used to working with in order to be productive.
Unfortunately, I'm guessing that these emulators probably can't handle emulating these complex programs without a pretty big performance drop. I have a fast system because I want fast response from my complex apps, and I don't want to lose that for the sake of running OSS, as much as I'd like to try. Anybody who's tried care to share their experiences? I'm sure WINE and their ilk are fine for programs that mainly involve poking around text in various datastructures, but what happens to digital video or image manipulation software?
Faster, more stable, sure... But I still can't get used to the lack of features. I get lost with how hard things are to find and accomplish with a Windows desktop.
Yeah, linux is very fashionable for the technological elite to use, but what actual benefits do you get from using it as a Windows replacement. Compare to Windows XP Professional:
A good interface, quick command line access and a useful command line. SFTP/FTP/HTTP/everything/etc directly accessible under my filesystem browsing (KDE/Konqueror)... lots.
1) Is it *really* more stable? How often can you *really* get the BSOD to come up in XP? I haven't managed yet. Can you get the uptime I've experienced with Windows on Linux? Probably. Can you get the same uptime and still have sound support? Maybe. Can you do it with the grand total of around 2 hours of configuration necessary?
Yes, it's more stable. From what I understand of XP, the BSOD doesn't happen anymore because the machine just reboots rather than show a screen dump to most people who will never know what it is. And sound support is not so hard as you make it out to be. It just works, just like in Windows. As for the total 2 hours of configuration, that's BS. I can't remember ever rebuilding a Windows box in under a day. My Debian install, should I need to reinstall it, can be reconfigured in less time than that will all programs and preferences and configuration carried over.
2) Is it *really* more secure, or does it just invite fewer attacks? Yes, I know Outlook is terrible, but that's not the actual Windows OS, nor does it need to be installed.
Yes, and the fact that Outlook insecurities can affect the OS is proof that the OS itself is also insecure.
3) Is all the extra aggravation *really* worth it? Yeah, you're extra cool for running Linux and you're sticking it to the man, but why?
Again, I choose Linux because it works better for me. I can't do my job from a Windows machine anymore. It just isn't capable. As for aggravation, the only computer aggravation I have is crappy hardware that I can't afford to replace when the caps on my mobo blow out or something.
Don't get me wrong; Linux is great for a server environment and a viable alternative when you have limited hardware and only need certain limited programs, but here at Slashdot it seems to be the solution to everything.
I use it on my servers, my desktop, my laptop, and my TV. That's a whole lot of environments, a wide variety of hardware, and lots of different programs, moreso than I think is even available for Windows. Linux isn't the solution to everything and karma whores here are often pointing that out while those that say it is are usually modded down for lacking insight. That doesn't mean it should be pigeon-holed to only specific circumstances though.
For reference, I'm a Computer Science student and work as a programmer in the summers. My home computer is Windows XP Professional running on a pentium 4 1.7 ghz and my work computer is a pentium 3 450 mhz. I've managed to get some pretty snappy performance on my work computer by running xfce or blackbox (I prefer blackbox) as long as I don't run more than one or two real programs.
Sounds like when you want to work from your machine, you use Linux. But for the home machine, it doesn't matter. Lots of people here use their computers for work and therefore rely on their functionality. Linux is a much more viable choice then.
I basically run the same few programs on both computers (emacs, mozilla firefox, aim/gaim, winamp/xmms) most of the time. Granted, it's a little unfair because my home computer is three times the computer of my work computer, but I think I get a lot more than 3 times the benefit out of it.
For the
I've nothing to say here...
People like to talk about technology but forget why the whole thing started. ... which was mainly because Linus Thorvalds wanted to make proper use of his new and shiny 386 and none of the systems available to him back then enabled him to do this. The whole freedom shebang (while not necessarily bad) got added later on.
What pisses me of is that Word messes up its own documents even when they are made with the same version of Word (not to mention if the document comes from an older version). Ever worked with a document containing images anchored to the paragraphs. When the paragraph moves word happily shifts the image outside the margins! Then when you have finally all images where they should go suddenly several of them have been replaced with red crosses! This is why at my work the user manual is written using OpenOffice.org. We can trust OOo with our documents. OOo allways behaves predictable and its style system is much more powerfull then that of Word.
Strange how people allways bitch about it when OOo imports a word document incorrectly but they never mention that Word doesn't read sxw.
What's the point? Now you have to have a Windows license and a VMware license. You have you train users to operate an OS inside of an OS.
I actually think this is the worst (but some reason most popular) resolution.
Your post seems thoughtful, so I'd like to give you a point by point response.
Windows certainly has gotten faster and more stable, to the point where its just installed performance is no longer an issue. However, under use by normal users, it seems to pick up a variety of little applications, which eventually interact poorly. The registry is not your friend. The response is to lock down XP sufficiently so that users can't install anything, but I wonder what other problems this would incur. It certainly wouldn't work well in most home environments.
Linux is only fashionable in Linux friendly circles, like Slashdot. People who have choosen other OSes usually think you're weird for choosing something else. I also use XP Pro, not for my primary system, but so that I can gain familiarity with it, to better support my clients. I prefer Linux for several reasons, including:
*) Apps are easier to install (config && make && make install) and easier to obtain in that I can always download the app I need, for instant gratification.
*) Better logging when things go wrong. When Windows apps fail, I frequently get no error message, or a useless one. Not long ago I had problems with a sound card in Windows. It was in Device Manager, it was in the list of sound cards in the Multimedia config panel, but when I went to the pick list in the Multimedia panel to choose it as the device to output sound to, it didn't appear. Huh? In Linux, at the absolute worst, I can use sh -x and strace to find, at a very low level exactly what is going on. This shows me what I need to know to fix the issue suprisingly frequently, as I'm not a systems programmer.
*) Superior flexibility. There are many small tools that do one thing well. I can glue them together in spontaneous shell scripts to extract information from large numbers of files. Recently, I attempted to help a coleague to do a similar analysis on information contained in Word files. No similar solution was found. Lots of nuisance manipulation by hand. I prefer to make the computer do the mindless work.
*) Text file-centric configuration. A simple SSH session (from my T-Mobile Sidekick, a great sysadmin tool!) can configure nearly any app, and run most of them. Also, since I can grep/sed/awk I can mangle them with easily. If I'm really stuck for where a config option is, I can grep the entire file system. It's not a great option as it takes a long time, but when other options fail, it's there. I can't grep config dialogs in Windows.
*) Support. Suprised? Don't be. Does Microsoft even offer "free" support with a purchase? When I do call support, I get the annoying level 1 tech that is employed to keep the idiots away from the techs who know something. Depending on their training, I may or may not get passed to level 2 quickly. When I post to the mailing list for a given app, the developer and several people who have dealt with the same issue usually see it almost immediately, and give me the help I need, immediately.
*) Simplicity. I never have registry problems under Linux. Uninstalling an app is a simple matter of deleting the files. I don't have the sort of application interaction issues I see in Windows.
*) Security. Yes, it really is more secure. There have been viruses for UNIX, but they have not propigated well. There are technical reasons for this, and at least a couple of papers written about it. Google is your friend. Patches come out more quickly. Common client apps tend to have fewer issues, and do fewer things on behalf of the user without consulting them.
*) Freedom. Can't underestimate this one. It's just nice to really own my system.
To your numbered points:
1) Yes. No BSoD so far, but I've seen XP lock cold and less dramatic failures. Yes. Yes. Yes.
2) It is really more secure, see above. It is more secure considering only the core system, not to include apps. It is also more secure considering apps. Considering system secur
Linux is bloated? So exactly what would you leave out of the kernel? (Besides the fact that you probably can do it if you don't care recompiling your kernel)
Ah, you mean "Linux distribution XY is bloated"? So, then don't use Linux distribution XY. Use Linux distribution Z instead. Or even: Use Linux distribution XY, but do a selective install and don't install that software which you consider bloat.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Set up a ~3gb partition just for user files (or use Fat32 for your windows partition). Define this as the location for My Documents in Windows, and in Linux you can set it as the save point for OpenOffice, etc (e.g. soft link into your home folder)
... or do some work.
Then, if you use Thunderbird for email on Windows and Linux, you can point them both to the same message store so it doesn't matter which OS you're using. Ditto the Mozilla Calendar app in Mozilla/Firefox. Ditto Openoffice files. With those three items covered, choosing whether to boot Windows or Linux comes down to whether you want to play games
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
I use Evolution with the Exchange server at work, and it does a pretty good job. The calender and groupware features seem to work just fine, and it can even use directory system as well.
Wheather or not it is worthwhile is solely based on how it is implemented. Exchange accounts are done on a per-seat license, so you have to pay no matter what. This means, however, that you have the option of using alternative platforms instead of paying for Windows licenses though. You can save money on the OS and office suite by using Linux in conjunction with OO.o and Evolution. Ximian/Novell may be directing their efforts towards OSX versions of Evolution as well (according to a rep I saw about 2 weeks ago). The process of being able to slowly move away from Windows, while keeping all of the major groupware features really *does* allow you to save money, and possibly move to other alternatives. Unfortunately, there are not any viable opensource groupware alternatives at the moment. So you're going to pay for something like the groupware software from Novell or IBM.
Stallman's gulity (sic) of choosing a nonstandard word-type for the meaning of free he wants. "free [action]" means liberty. "free [noun]" means zero-cost.
America is a free country. I am a free man.
Can you produce for me a native English speaker who, seeing those sentences, will "presmue (sic) that they are talking about something-for-nothing"?
Purely wondering...what kind of success rate would you expect here?
"Hi, I'm running Linux and not able to use this application, I'd like to know the possibily of you exposing an XML-RPC or SOAP API of the functionality in the web interface so the other extremely tiny minute number of users that also fit into my scenerio wouldn't have to run Windows or some form of emulation software."
I said "extremely tiny minute" not because that's the share size of the Linux community, but that's the share size of them neededing to run this specific application.
I can't imagine this bank, or any other company is going to worry about requests like this. I'd be surprised if you actually got to talk to anyone even remotely connected to their IT department.
My Tech Posts on Twitter
Dia is terrible. I had a hell of a time just getting the thing to do grid snapping consistently and having a drag selection actually SELECT the objects I was trying to select.
Just because it's an OSS "clone" of Visio doesn't actually mean it comes anywhere close to being a replacement for Visio except in the simplest of cases.
Yeah man, I know what you mean. What kind of a fool would think that? When I see "Buy one jar of Jiff and get one free" I am certain it means that if I buy one, another will be allowed to do as it pleases.
I remind me of a conversation I had with a friend that illustrate the main reason people don't want to switch.
Me - [explanation of what is FireFox and what are the benefits]
Her - I don't want to download another program, IE do the job. And it's what everyone else is using !
Me - Maybe, but your computer got many viruses. (PCCillin shows some viruses but don't want to remove them, probably because the license expired)
Her - I didn't installed them myself.
Me - No, but using IE is begging for someone to install them for you.
Her - [angry face]
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
Who needs Everquest? Play NWN on a Persistant world like NeverSummer. Not only is it cheaper, supports Linux, and most mods are open source. Wan't to play Golf game on Linux? Duffer's Golf is an excellent UT04 Mod which plays fine on Linux.
As someone who spent a couple years working in the video games industry, I've had more fun with Mods, and open source games than with "professional" games. Mods and OS games are the last spark of creativity left in games.
Quit worrying about what you can't play, and enjoy what you can
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
Staying with the article, if you really want to run both Windows apps and Linux apps at the same time without confusing configuration, use VMware Workstation. I have it at home and it's quite convenient. Start windows or linux when I need it and then stop it when I'm done. It's quick and easy, not to mention you can run any version of Windows or Unix bases OS on it.
"Damn those open source developers. How DARE they not give you a 100% functional equvalent of a 700 dollar program for free."
So... we should be understanding because equivalent doesn't need to that equivalent if it's free?
Yeah, real insightful.
"Derp de derp."