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.'"

18 of 710 comments (clear)

  1. Well, not quite... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Well, not quite... by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Of course, Vista and 7 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows apps, while XP was a $100 way of running Windows apps. And compared to XP, Vista also needed $400 worth of hardware.

      Depressing proof that it's all in the marketing.

    2. Re:Well, not quite... by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually it's all in the bundling. OEMs will put in whatever version of Windows you give them, it's not like it costs them $500.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Well, not quite... by ImYourVirus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, Vista and 7 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows apps, while XP was a $100 way of running Windows apps.

      And that's why XP is still vastly more popular than Vista.

      Or maybe because it isn't bloatware?

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    4. Re:Well, not quite... by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think $250 for full retail of an OS is a bit much, but that's just me.

      Its all relative.

      It does a hell of a lot more than most software. And its a hell of a lot more complicated than most software too. File systems, threading, memory management, security, networking, printing, hardware abstraction...

      Yet people drop more than that amount for 'Apple remote desktop' which is SSH, VNC, SCP, and a few tricks. Or check out the price of Acrobat 9, Simply Accounting Premium (with Reports!!!111), or Filemaker Pro 10...

      Suddenly retail OSes seems cheap.

      It just goes to prove that 'Price' and 'how much it can do / how complicated that stuff is' are completely unrelated.

  2. But running windows would help by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No, Linux isn't windows, BUT,if it were very easy to run windows apps in Linux (for common Joe user with Joe user level hardware), I think it would be a boon to Linux.

    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.........
    1. Re:But running windows would help by SCHecklerX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, Linux isn't windows, BUT,if it were very easy to run windows apps in Linux (for common Joe user with Joe user level hardware), I think it would be a boon to Linux.

      Wrong. That's exactly what Shuttleworth is saying. If linux can run windows programs, then traditional windows programmers have no reason to try to develop natively for the platform. This is one thing that ended up killing OS/2. But Linux, luckily, cannot be killed in this way thanks to the community of open source developers around it. OS/2 didn't have that advantage, so died when nobody wrote native apps for it. Not to discredit the WINE developers for the work they have done, but native apps are the better approach here.

      Shuttleworth has it right. We don't want to be another way to run windows programs. We need to be our own environment, and not ape things just for the sake of doing it the same, tired, broken way. I am happy to see that many of the wonderful things from OS/2's WPS are slowly making their way into the linux environments. There's still a way to go, but it's already better in many ways than the windows UI 'experience'.

    2. Re:But running windows would help by melikamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMHO, Wine is not "getting there" at all. If the Windows API specs were open, it would be a different matter. As it stands, the specs are closed, and Microsoft is as willing as usual to spoil any attempts to make things compatible. Would it not be easier to rewrite core apps from scratch? Office, Photoshop, Exchange. What else do you guys need? No one really cares about games. If Windows remains the primary game platform, no big loss. We have plenty of other proprietary game platforms, and it seems to be the natural way. Can we finally have a productivity platform running free software, though?

      We already have OpenOffice, which is comparable to MS Office in both feature set and performance. While it may be wise at the time for most people to delay the transition, those who say that MS Office is better for anything are insane. Today, those who build a solution from scratch and are not tied to DOC format will automatically choose OO. Here we won already.

      Gimp is not Photoshop, but it would be a Photoshop Jr. if only we added more color depth. That seems to be easier to do than to make Wine work.

      Please correct me if I am wrong, but Exchange server is a database with a web interface. Don't we have all the components already? Compared to the Wine project goals, it would be almost trivial to throw some stuff together to make a feature-equivalent app.

      I greatly respect the effort that went into Wine, but it seems like we could do better by simply filling the few remaining gaps in the desktop application world. Wine offers quickly diminishing returns because MS will never publish (let alone free) the code and will never stop intentionally breaking compatibility. Aside from very simple cases, Wine will never be used for OS transition, as that would require 100% compatibility, which is impossible to achieve.

  3. New record for least content in an article? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So this news story is fluff spun out of two lines of IRC chat?

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  4. In other words... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. WINE is irrelevant... by jd2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Bravo by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  7. Freedom. by bannerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  8. Re:I think he's wrong by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If your going to be using windows apps anyway, what do you have to gain by migrating?

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  9. Ubuntu should be MORE than windows by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OS/2 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows applications while Windows was a $100 way of running Windows applications

    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.

  10. Re:Have YOU ever downloaded it and used it? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Ubuntu is not up to scratch by cptnapalm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:users don't figure out how to install apps by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?