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
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.
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.
1) Install Cygwin.
2) Add the Cygwin bin directory to your path.
3) Enjoy - The Command Prompt just got a helluva lot more useful.
Wasted 3 mod points that I'd contributed before posting, but felt the need to share the joy of Cygwin. Makes Windows damned near tolerable for people that have to have it.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Setting: press conference room. Shuttleworth is standing behind a podium with disheveled hair and sweat stains spreading underneath his arms. Reporters sit in chairs before him. ... Ubuntu is trying to ... "be" Windows? ... so you want to be Windows? ...
Reporter A: So
Shuttleworth: Ok, for the last time, I am going to go over this very very slowly.
*Shuttleworth writes Ubuntu and Windows on the chalkboard and puts a massive "does not equal" sign in between them.*
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu cannot and will not ever "be" Windows. I've been over this for the past two hours, can we move away from Windows/Ubuntu comparisons here?
Reporter B: But you want to be a widely used operating system?
Shuttleworth: That is correct.
Reporter B: And Windows is the most widely user operating system?
Shuttleworth: Also correct.
Reporter B:
*Shuttleworth lets out a long drawn-out sigh, massages his forehead and takes a drink from his glass of water*
Shuttleworth: *holds up two pieces of fruit* In my left hand I hold an apple. In my right hand I hold an orange. Although both are round, the two taste different and have different colors and subtle shapes
Reporter C: Hold on, an "Apple"? I'm not following you, are you saying you're trying to "be" OS X?
Shuttleworth: This press conference is over!
My work here is dung.
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
I've gotten several people in my family started with Ubuntu, and one weird thing I've observed is that none of them ever seem to spontaneously figure out how to install applications -- they don't even seem to realize that the open-source apps are out there, or that it might be desirable to install them.
Okay, maybe this is a good thing, because maybe it just means that a default Ubuntu does a very good job of including enough apps that the average user can do everything they need to do. Or maybe it just means that most people, unlike me, don't enjoy playing with software.
But it really does make me wonder whether the Linux community could be doing a better job of selling itself based on the availability of a huge number of free, high-quality applications. Apt-cache stats says that I have 25,000 packages installed on my desktop machine at home, all of them free. If even 1% of those cost $10 each, we'd be talking about a massive investment in order to build up a similar software library using proprietary software.
Now it might seem obvious to linux geeks that you should say, "I want to do x, therefore I search on freshmeat for an app that does x, and then I install it." But most people don't even think that way about computer software. They're in the habit of buying it in a store, or on amazon, and they expect it to cost money. Synaptic doesn't exactly advertise itself very well, either. Users seem to putter around for years in Gnome without ever noticing that there's a utility built into the menus that would allow them to download a ton of free software.
Find free books.
The cost is beside the point.
I am a long-time Linux (and much more recently OS X) user, and if I am presented with a piece of software that requires Windows to run it, I usually prefer to just do without.
Fortunately in my discipline (biotech) developers are beginning to realise there are alternatives - for instance, Geneious is a stupendously fine example. It's definitely not free, but it is available on multiple platforms, which is a big step away from where we were a couple of years ago.
Compare this with Endnote which is rapidly losing ground to Zotero because the developers refuse to cooperate with the *nix world.
And with Windows it's Right-click on 'My Network Places' -> Properties. Then pick the connection ->Properties. Pick the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) option ->Properties. All mouse-driven, all GUI, all easy. Adjust away.
That's the difference. With Ubuntu|Linux, you've got to *know* how to get to the Terminal, then you've got to type stuff, then you've got to edit config files. Then restart things. Then something else breaks, which requires not the usual 'Add/Remove' program function to fix it, but a trip into 'sudo aptitude blah-blah-blah'. Then maybe that works, maybe it doesn't. Of course, it's trivially easy to find umpteen tutorials on *how* to do this stuff. Linux-lovers get excited over that. And that's totally cool. And I'll buy the argument that it is "better" to actually learn how your O/S works. But casual users, mainstream users, money-spending users, no way. They just want it to work.
I have three notebooks; one running Vista, one running Ubuntu 9.04, and a Macbook. I use them interchangeably, depending on what I'm doing. Ubuntu 9.04 is the best release of Ubuntu yet, but it's still kludgy compared to Vista or Mac. And when things break in Ubuntu (like when my WiFi simply stopped working after a recommended update & reboot) it required quite a bit of troubleshooting and 'tinkering' to get it working again. After a half-hour, I was back in business. But it required a half-hour of work to fix. Enjoyable fun for the computer nerd. But not for Grandma. People want apps that are easily installed, easily removed, and consistent in their method of installation.
And until some Linux distro figures that out (Ubuntu 9.04 is *damn* close) they'll never capture enough market share to hit critical mass. Based on the improvements I've witnessed from Ubuntu 6.xxx through today's 9.04, they may be there by Ubuntu 10 or 11. Here's to hoping. :-)
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'.
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/