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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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
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"