Slashdot Mirror
Shuttleworth Says Ubuntu Can't Just Be Windows
ruphus13 writes "When Mark Shuttleworth was asked what role WINE will play in Ubuntu's success, he said that Ubuntu cannot simply be a better platform to run Windows apps. From the post, according to Shuttleworth, '[Windows and Linux] both play an important role but fundamentally, the free software ecosystem needs to thrive on its own rules. it is *different* to the proprietary software universe. We need to make a success of our own platform on our own terms. if Linux is just another way to run Windows
apps, we can't win. OS/2 tried that ...' The post goes on to say, 'Linux simply isn't Windows (nor is Windows Linux) and to expect fundamentally different approaches (and I'm not just thinking closed versus open) to look, feel, and operate the same way is senseless.'"
OS/2 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows applications while Windows was a $100 way of running Windows applications. It didn't matter that OS/2 was better, it wasn't (in the minds of most consumers) $400 better, especially when it needed $400 more RAM as well.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
With me...there are some windows applications I have to use (Quickbooks pro for my company I contract through), and on jobsites often there are tools they have that are only windows based.
I find when I have to use those windows boxes on site, I often really, really miss having my unix tools (sed, awk, etc...) around. If I could have my linux install, and have the hard core tools to use, and be able to also run windows apps when I needed to, I'd be happy to go.
That need, obviously isn't one Joe User needs, but, maybe it would work the other way around with JU. He has his windows apps, and over time, discovers the neat tools and functionality that Linux offers. Frankly, as long as he has his apps he needs from windows, he doesn't care what the OS is.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So this news story is fluff spun out of two lines of IRC chat?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
We're not going to try and base our business model on WINE.
Much better to have native apps.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
For running apps in a corporate enviroment. Many current business apps (think more along the lines of ERP/CRM/indrusry specific apps rather than Word/Ecxel) aren't supported by their vendor when running under virtulization with a full version of Windows (e.g. Citrix or VMware) so it is very unlikely that they would be supported under WINE. While it is possible that the apps may run fine under WINE most companies would be unwilling to risk running their mission critical applications (I.e. The apps they make money from) in a completely unsupported environment like WINE.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Ubuntu cannot simply be a better platform to run Windows apps.
Exactly right. Morphing Linux into a Windows software platform would be a major mistake. You'd still be locking users into one way of doing things. I'm sitting here looking at our developers, all working on Linux. One uses pico, one a text editor another uses Eclipse. We all work differently, even different distros, and all manage to get our work done.
In a Windows shop we were all using the same OS, the same development environment and the same tools. Everything was regimented into MSFT's way of doing things and limited by the latitude they decide you get. Their tools, their rules, their training, their way. And it seemed we were always dancing on their string over something. Licensing, product activation, version compatibility issues, so we'd get paid to rewrite working applications for new frameworks, security patches that break things, the upgrade treadmill. Hours of undocumented time pouring through knowledge base articles. It was a constant waterfall of nit-picky little things that we would have to bend our schedule, manage our time to accommodate. The bonus was you always looked stressed out and busy and it was job security. Without regular maintenance, apps would stop working. You have no idea how much time you spend digging sand in a MSFT environment until you move off it.
I think it's nice that Wine exists for those odd times you need to run a Windows app. But that should never be the OS focus. And in the bigger picture of proprietary v free, as long as MSFT dictates your application environment, you're still dancing on their string.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Ubuntu won't "just be windows" because it is free (NOT as in beer). The more I use my 360 and PS3 to try to play media from my PC the more I understand how bad the protected DRM-everything model is for consumers. That's the future of Windows, guys. People are not going to put up with their hardware refusing to do what should easily be able to do as long as there is an alternative that will do everything else too. Convenience is king, and DRM is becoming increasingly restrictive and annoying.
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
If your going to be using windows apps anyway, what do you have to gain by migrating?
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Keep in mind that the 8.10 release is not designed for broad use and that most users (even now that 9.04 has been released) should still be using 8.04, the last stable LTS release.
Untrue.
While there is no long term support (LTS) for anything since 8.04, but for those of us who don't need it, that isn't a concern. There is 18 months of support for every Ubuntu release. That is plenty long enough for most uses.
If I were designing a process that required multi-year support and maintenance, then I'd certainly think about LTS, but that isn't the world I work in.
If Ubuntu were a $0 way of running windows applications it would take over the world.
Ubuntu shouldn't be *just* windows, it should be windows and more. The problem is that the "and more" part Ubuntu already does perfectly but the "just windows" part is still not complete.
If wine could run every relevant windows applications, people could forget the applications and concentrate on what the system itself does.
Linux is so much better, so much more powerful, easier to use, secure, and stable than windows it's a shame so many people are turned off Linux because their work requires exactly this or that application.
I had quite the opposite experience.
I have given up on Linux for the desktop completely.
It never just works. I have been waiting since 1999 and even switched to FreeBSD for a couple of years. I spent hours twinking the FreeBSD ports or Gentoo portage and it almost works or some bugs happen like an issue of bleeding high volume without hte volume control and a kill -9 will kill only the gui part of the application and my speakers get blown out because the sound system is still blasting, etc.
Anyway Ubuntu sort of worked on my laptop. Then all of the sudden during an apt-get upgrade my hardware became unsupported.
To this day Ubuntu will not run on any non intel AMD chipset. They refuse to provide drivers and the instructions to enable them require a cvs to madwifi which I could do if I had internet access in the first place which I lost. I do not know if Ubuntu is trying to take a stance on principles of supporting proprietary drivers but as a user I do not care. All I know is it used to work and now I have Ethernet, 3d video, or wifi.
And please do not give me the lecture that I should have checked my hardware. I am on a strict budget in this economy and do not have time to check every component in every chipset to find a laptop under $750 to see how stable the Linux drivers are. The intel ones had crappy video or were too expensive.
I had nothing but problems and I use MS Office which is a superior to openoffice. My computers just work with Windows with zero hassles.
Linux is great in the computer room where it does not have to pretend to be the operating system for everyone like Windows tries to be. Windows is now stable for desktop usage and comes with the computer anyway. Unless your a php or Unix developer why switch? Only servers need six sigma %99.97 uptime or better and Windows server 2008 is getting close to this.
Do not get me wrong I think its a great operating system. But I have noticed hardware compatibility has gone down rather than up in recent years due to wifi and users switching from standard desktops to proprietary laptops.
This is what Linux truly needs. Alot of anti Microsoft users are switching to Macs which ends up hurting Linux on anything but servers.
http://saveie6.com/
There are many people who will not agree with you and that explains why the Linux market share numbers are still as low as compared to other platforms.
What I will do is to quote this very intelligent man:
Have a read.
"Until the Linux community comes together under a common vision for Linux it has virtually no chance of competing with Microsoft Windows for a place on the desktop. As long as the Linux community is split between the different Linux distros, and as long as Linux continues to be designed for power users, by power users, it will remain out of reach for the broader desktop user community. The Linux community needs to agree on one flavor of Linux. The Linux community needs to focus on that one single Linux platform, developing not to the needs of the power user but the common user. The Linux community needs to simplify Linux. Until this happens Linux will remain in the shadow of Microsoft Windows. And that's right where Steve Ballmer wants it."
He goes further:
"I love Linux. I deploy Linux in the data center all the time. Linux is a very capable, flexible, and reliable platform that can easily run major enterprise systems such as databases and web sites. But it takes someone with a higher degree of technical skill to install, support, and maintain Linux as compared to Microsoft server solutions. You find those skills more readily available in the IT world. Those skills do not exist in the world of the common desktop user."
And further more:
"Until the Linux community stops whining about the evils of Microsoft and begins to deliver a Linux-based desktop OS that is as simple and user-friendly as Microsoft Windows there will be no real deployment of Linux on the desktop. For the common desktop user Microsoft Windows is the solution to their needs. Linux may be more secure. Linux may be less prone to fault or failure. But Linux isn't worth a dime if it is too complex to use, and for the vast majority of desktop users that is exactly what it is."
These are not my words. He seems to be right. Linux has been around for a decade but its [usage] numbers are still low. Why? Read above.
With your Windows example, you demonstrated that it is easy, if you already know how to do it. There isn't anything particularly intuitive about it. Grandma wouldn't be able to do this.
I'm not trying to flame; it is just that the out of the box intuitiveness of Windows is tremendously overstated.
No, you aren't a dumb ass at all... Ubuntu switched networking configuration to a total mess with the so called network manager, and configuring a static IP with that is infamously error prone. The most common advise is to remove network manager and replace it with either WICD or gnome-network-admin, depending on your needs.
As I said, I never *wanted* to learn CS. But I have, I have.
With due respect, you learned IT and not CS - not that the former is anything to sneeze at.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
XP isn't bloatware.
...
Amazing. People really can get used to anything. How an OS that needs a FULL CD when it doesn't actually CONTAIN anything can not be called bloatware I shall never understand. Don't link to linux images, those contain a full suit of software not just simple editor, a basic media player with no codec support.
I hope your defence is that you are just young.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.