Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Run Linux as a Windows Screensaver

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the you-really-can-put-it-anywhere dept.

zornorph writes "A software engineer at IBM has come up with a way to 'construct and package a Linux® LiveCD so that it will install using the standard Microsoft® Windows® install process and will operate as a standard Windows screensaver.'"

9 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. RTFA Please! by ThatGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    The submitter referred to this software as a "screen saver", but if he had bothered to read the story at all he would have realized it should in fact be classified as a "computer saver".

    Still, it's a very interesting story!

    --
    What are you eating? isItVeg?.
  2. Screen Saver Fun by LordofEntropy · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can pretty much make any exe a screen saver. I remember a coworker doing this once with logon.exe on Win 2k. Funny thing is, that the screen saver ran as admin, this was a pretty big security hole, and quite amusing.

    --
    Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
    1. Re:Screen Saver Fun by carleton · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there's a bootable floppy (running Linux) that will let you edit the registry. The dox for it recommend doing so (specifically, running cmd.exe as the logonscr(eensaver) and then bringing up the password gui tools) to reset the password on a box running Win 2000 with Active Directory. (the tool can just blank out the password for non AD-based systems, but AD is trickier)

  3. Why? by AgentAce · · Score: 2, Informative

    Damn Small Linux already runs on top of Windows.

    Of course running Linux on Windows is similar to driving a BMW around inside of a Triumph.

  4. Re:Maybe there is a point... by _|()|\| · · Score: 3, Informative
    A distributed computing project (ala SETI) which relied on Linux could run this way.

    If this were Cooperative Linux that might be an avenue worth exploring. However, the article describes running Linux under QEMU, which the author admits is "slooooooooowwww."

  5. Re:A screensaver.. or not? by Slack3r78 · · Score: 4, Informative
    As a user who would try this out, it sounds fishy in terms of any practical use. You type something, the screensaver vanishes.

    Not really. Windows screensavers are just executables with the file extension changed to .SCR. The program itself dictates what causes it to quit. Now, most screesavers do exit when there's any kind of keyboard or mouse activity, but it's nothing built into the screensaver framework itself.
  6. Already exists! by DavonZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    OK. When andLinux (http://wiki.gp2x.org/wiki/AndLinux) was released to the public over a week ago, Slashdot flagged it as uninteresting and ignored the news. andLinux is a Debian based Linux distribution that runs in Windows. It uses CoLinux, Xming and several other technologies to work.

    So, is it that LordDavon (yes, me!) is just a john-q-public open source developer and doesn't matter... but if Big Blue does something similar they matter!? Is it that Dynamism is supporting andLinux and not IBM? I really am a bit pissed on this one! I really believed that Slashdot would want to promote a project made for the public, by the public. I guess I need to try and make money off of Linux for them to care.

    Honestly, I just don't know. What I do know is that I don't need a screensaver to run Linux in Windows, I was first and Slashdot and IBM can kiss my ass!

  7. Re:Why not stand-alone? by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

    A lot of banks internal politics won't let them run a solution that isn't supported by a "major vendor". Besides which Diebold no longer loads new ATM's with OS/2 so they would have to develop their own or work with a smaller player who would.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  8. Re:What a pain® by ari_j · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, while I am not a lawyer and have no particular expertise in trademark law, I suspect that it may be helpful to use (R) and TM to avoid being sued. For instance, if I talk at length about Coca-Cola and never point out that it's trademarked, someone may be stupid enough to think I am using Coca-Cola as my own term. If enough stupid someones thought that, Coca-Cola Inc. would probably sue me.

    But in general, I don't think excessive use of trademark symbols helps anyone. Use it once per term per document, at most, and put in a footnote about all trademarks being the property of their respective owners. More than that gets on my nerves.