Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Could Linux Ever Become Fully Compatible With Windows and Mac Software?
dryriver writes: Linux has been around for a long time now. A lot of work has gone into it; it has evolved nicely and it dominates in the server space. Computer literate people with some tech skills also like to use it as their desktop OS. It's free and open source. It's not vendor-locked, full of crapware or tied to any walled garden. It's fast and efficient. But most "everyday computer users" or "casual computer buyers" still feel they have to choose either a Windows PC or an Apple device as the platform they will do their computing on. This binary choice exists largely because of very specific commercial list of programs and games available for these OSs that is not available for Linux.
Here is the question: Could Linux ever be made to become fully compatible with all Windows and Mac software? What I mean is a Linux distro that lets you successfully install/run/play just about anything significant that says "for Windows 10" or "for OSX" under Linux, without any sort of configuring or crazy emulation orgies being needed? Macs and PCs run on the exact same Intel/AMD/Nvidia hardware as Linux. Same mobos, same CPUs and GPUs, same RAM and storage devices. Could Linux ever be made to behave sufficiently like those two OSs so that a computer buyer could "go Linux" without any negative consequences like not being able to run essential Windows/Mac software at all? Or is Linux being able to behave like Windows and OSX simply not technically doable because Windows and OSX are just too damn complex to mimic successfully?
Here is the question: Could Linux ever be made to become fully compatible with all Windows and Mac software? What I mean is a Linux distro that lets you successfully install/run/play just about anything significant that says "for Windows 10" or "for OSX" under Linux, without any sort of configuring or crazy emulation orgies being needed? Macs and PCs run on the exact same Intel/AMD/Nvidia hardware as Linux. Same mobos, same CPUs and GPUs, same RAM and storage devices. Could Linux ever be made to behave sufficiently like those two OSs so that a computer buyer could "go Linux" without any negative consequences like not being able to run essential Windows/Mac software at all? Or is Linux being able to behave like Windows and OSX simply not technically doable because Windows and OSX are just too damn complex to mimic successfully?
Could it? Yes. Will it? No. The other OSes will always be putting something in that makes it break, and playing catchup isn't viable. You also don't want always to be the tail getting wagged by the big dogs.
Why is this even a question? If you want to run your Windows 10 applications, why don't you simply use Windows? Why switch to Linux if you just want it to be another form of Windows?
Next dumb question?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Well, yes in theory, if Apple and Microsoft used their knowledge of their own systems to implement it, but why would they? And independent project always have to play catch up, just look at wine.
Don't use desktop computers anymore, they are using tablets and/or cellular phones. This is the current mainstream computers market.
Personally I have a been using Linux as by desktop for 2 years (Redhat/Mate). I have Windows on as dual boot. I had to dual boot twice in that time - just to use IE due to poorly designed websites. I know my work process is different than others. I know many must have the Adobe suite of tools, or maybe Quickbooks, other than that what App/Tools do others must-have these days to keep Windows around? Just curious.
If you want to run Windows applications, you need Windows libraries and kernel. At this point you are running Windows.
It is technically possible, but something that Microsoft and Apple absolutely do not want to see happen. If Linux ever comes to close for comfort, expect to see patent and copyright lawsuits in abundance, and continuing changes to their products to make sure compatibility stays sufficiently broken.
Come to think of it, didn't I already see this happening?
Instead of using Wine, we need to release patches to the Linux kernel to load Windows and Mac binaries natively like ReactOS does. Or even better, release patches to software to get it running on Linux. Instead of cracking software for piracy purposes, people should "crackport" software to Linux. I'm surprised no one has done this already.
No
A lot of people pick up these walled garden platforms now. For instance Slack (for work chat) is very popular along with the Microsoft suite of Office/OneDrive.
People rail against these platform companies but they offer a lot of productive features when working in teams.
Most other opsys have significant security flaws to allow "more efficient" gaming via giving direct access to hardware. And if you look at windows (I don't know as much about OSX but hey, BSD) - things like OLE/COM/ActiveX/stupid mixing of code and data - keep that away from me.
Even using Wine lets you get some of the badware infections. Why on earth would I want that?
Far better to get enough people moved over to real opsys so that software vendors will support them.
Of course, they'll find out their cheap tricks that made their stuff crashy on windows won't fly at all if we stick to the good architectures and rules...and they'll have to learn to write better code.
Meanwhile...some decent stuff is showing up on Linux already (or finally, depending on your point of view).
How is that a bad thing?
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Could WIndows and Mac ever become fully compatible with Linux software?
No, because OSX and Windows 10 contains proprietary code and probably 3rd party licensed code that Apple, Microsoft and their partners will never license under a free (libre) license that is usable in a Linux distribution. Projects like WINE will never be 100% compatible because they are trying to implement a moving target. As soon as they have reproduced the old API, there is a new not fully compatible API they have to work towards.
The submitter makes it sound like OS X and Windows are compatible and that the Linux guys are just too lazy to make it happen. I'm thinking that if you wanted Linux to run Windows apps natively, you'd end up with a system with a bunch of the same design flaws as Windows. Linux and Windows are different, if you want your Windows software to run on Linux you're going to have to do the coding and compiling to the application to make that happen, because Linus sure isn't going to modify the kernel.
ies4linux, let me save you some pain.
No, because Windows and macOS are moving targets. It's not possible to make a functional clone of a moving, complex target.
Also, there wouldn't be a point in doing this. Linux users actively do not want to be running Windows or macOS systems, that is why they are running Linux. There is no reason to make a clone of existing systems because people want a third option, not a clone of an existing option.
The short answer is no. While technically it is "yes" doing this would break the things about Linux (especially the userspace) that people like about UNIX type operating systems. I already find Linux a bit too "Windowsy" for my use. I prefer FreeBSD or OpenBSD. Stuff like systemd (yup, here it comes, a systemd rant) has turned the salient feature fo UNIX (simplicity) inside out to make a more Windows like experience. While you can get some applications to run without too much damage to the UNIX philosophy you'll find that the applications won't work well without all the integrations. A Windows application really expects the trimmings of a Windows operating system.
Honestly, if you want an open source Windows OS that doesn't spy on you then go give the ReactOS guys some support. Submit patches (I have), toss them some cash, help with testing. What you want is ReactOS and that's fine. Let a Windows OS be a Windows OS and let UNIX operating systems remain UNIX like.
To be fully compatible, Linux would have to run all software. The would include things like Windows hardware drivers. Linux and Windows handle the interface between hardware and the OS very differently. As long as the software you plan on using does generic type things, like write files to the hard drive or display a picture on the screen, you could possibly run software. But, the OS is the interface between the hardware and the various running programs and components. I don't think they will ever develop a way to figure out what a driver from another OS is trying to do and perform that function in an OS designed to do it differently, as well as manage requests from other programs trying to perform the same function.
Games and MS Office are the big ones. In addition to that, just about every industry has their own set of standard applications that most people use and those are generally Windows only apps.
Can Windows be fully compatible with Windows Software
Can OSX be fully compatible with OS X Software
Normally whenever the OS gets an upgrade, legacy compatibility is broken, or security patches are in place, which may prevent some software using that vulnerability as a core of its function.
To have full compatibility or 99.9% compatibility. You are in essence virtualization an other OS in Linux.
Tools like Wine which offer a compatibility layer, does so at a cost of redirecting system calls to a compatibility layer, which ten translates it to do something else.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Games, MS Office (Excel, Visio, specifically), Photoshop.
Linux Steam, LibreOffice/GApps, Gimp just don't replace any of those. More so for folks that do video or audio/music work.
dude, we don't need Windows and we don't need Linux and we don't need OSX... but we need that Adobe suite and QuickBooks... capisce ? that is what we use.. not Linux.
Audio software. Audio in Linux is a sad joke.
If this is what you want, I encourage you to become one with the community behind WINE. And, chances are they have already put a lot of effort into making, the few Windows apps worth your time, work (cough..Photoshop...cough...games...)
WINE is about the closest you'll get for that.
Increasingly, though, a lot of rich content is being delivered in cross-platform format, including
- web applications .NET (runs on Mono on Linux)
- Java (JVM)
-
- interpreted environments (Python, Ruby, etc)
Slack has a Linux app.... and works fine in Chrome.
In a virtual machine.
It is of course technically possible to run Windows/Mac software on Linux. This is the aim of Wine, and it _sort of_ works. MIcrosoft also has the .net environment, which also _sort of_ works on Linux. But in reality it's unlikely to ever work worth a damn.
The far more likely scenario is that Mac/Windows starts moving more and more software to compatibility layers like QT and other libraries that are cross platform. Platforms are already getting more diverse with Tablets, Android and Apple phones that these compatibility libraries become more attractive because it means less versions of the same software.
Step out of the technical realm and try to understand economics.
A whole metric ton of said software and functionalities only came to Macs and Windows PCs because there was financial incentive for it, when not direct sponsorship from the OS companies themselves.
Deals with Apple and Microsoft, bundling schemes, the estabilished potential market, marketing itself...
Hardware is pretty much like that too... high end features are often paid for and made exclusively for, when not directly developed by Apple and Microsoft engineers.
But Linux already has other problems to deal with to reach the end consumer... image problems, easy maintenance and knowledgebase, among others. Depending on what you use a computer for, you can already get the "essencials" on any Linux distro. But what happens when you need help figuring something out, or getting something new everyone is talking about or starting to adopt?
Enough time has passed to know that this won't change anytime soon unless there is some drastic change in how the entire PC/laptop conundrum works. Apple and Microsoft have a very strong and distant lead when it comes to presenting new hardware and software for consumers. Linux dominates on servers, IoT devices and embedded categories.
Given the abuses in security and privacy that's happening on the commercial software and OS side, I sure would love to see Linux catching up... I'd at least want to see a successful mobile distro that is more widely adopted (and yes, I know it's the basis for Android). But unfortunately, up 'till now, the market has spoken - they really don't care a whole lot about privacy and security.
So, it is what it is. At least Linux is still there, and I hope it keeps going. But for the majority of the market, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to switch, so things will remain as is.
Thanks to Microsoft, the .NET Core framework is quickly nearing âoeon-parâ on Mac, Windows and Linux... at least for non-GUI applications. The Xamarin.Forms in development now is changing thr XAML syntax to be in line with UWP.
So for the most part, Microsoft is already making a HUGE amount of future Windows applications cross platform.
Also, Microsoft has implemented massive parts of the Mac SDKs as well as ObjectiveC compatible with the .NET framework through their bridge project.
At the current pace, in the next few years, code written for Windows or Mac will be a simple recompile away from running on any platform able to run .NET... which is most.
Thanks to projects like HTML5/C#, which has ported .NET to JavaScript as a backend and HTML5 as the front end, those same apps should run unchanged in a browser.
Microsoft has committed to porting Swift as well to .NET for their bridge.
There will be plenty of projects which donâ(TM)t port smoothly. There will be many native code programs as well. There is also a lot of Java stuff that doesnâ(TM)t port well. But we should see A LOT more Windows software able to run on Linux over the coming years.
Iâ(TM)m currently developing a major suite of applications for Windows, Mac and Linux using .NET because itâ(TM)s nice that someone finally delivered on the write once, run anywhere promise.
The day India cuts outside access to all idiots who live there. Maybe we stopped seeing idiocy like these in the article.
As really this made to Slashdot? Christ.
"Low" latency for certain values of low that aren't actually low.
For what you're doing - why dual-boot? A VM would serve just as well.
#DeleteChrome
When you think Linux for desktops you compare it to Windows and macOS. Windows is successful with industry because it supports MS Office, and with consumers because it supports video games. macOS is successful with consumers because it supports Apple hardware. Linux is successful with industry because it supports databases and websites. However, there is no particular software or hardware product that requires Linux that consumers need or are in awe with. Unless this changes, Linux will continue to be ignored by consumers.
Answer: No
With billions of dollars in funding, we could fund developers to successfully implement all the APIs needed to make Linux a desktop alternative that runs Windows and OSX applications. Without significant funding, it's not going to happen but it definitely could be done.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The answer is no because Linux will not commit to a stable binary interface.
Linus has declared it will never happen. You can't expect to distribute commercial software as source code to be compiled and installed by the user; it has to be a binary blob.
Of course, something written in Java, which almost inplements an OS in itself, could be deployed as a blob on Linux, but Java is only suitable for certain types of applications anyway (in particular, webapps). And then you still have the problem of making sure the JVM itself is installed (right version, location details, etc).
Maybe 99.9999% compatible, but that 0.0001% could make it crash or give wrong results. Emulating complex/messy things is always a challenge.
Table-ized A.I.
Through docker which can also run in windows/mac, you can already run many version of Linux.
Personally I don't wan't Linux to be compatible with Windows of OSX. I like the programs that are available on Linux. Even on Windows I choose to run open source alternatives to any commercial products from the big companies. I don't want Windows, MS Office, Adobe anything, and so on. There are a few smaller programs I like that are Windows only that I wish had a Linux version, for those I either live with a slightly inferior alternative, or can run it in Wine. Almost always I will go with the alternative.
Windows only games are the only thing I will boot Windows for. One of the downsides to building a Ryzen computer is needing to run Windows 10 for games, but that has brought in an unexpected upside. Since I only use it for games, and that partition is already corrupted with Windows 10, I see no harm in installing Uplay and Origin alongside Steam.
XCode (for iOS development) requires OSX. Visual Studio (for ASP.NET development) requires Windows (although the editor has been opensourced and works on Linux).
Also, a lot of clients still want Windows applications, so all the work I do for them.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
You'd need to kill off every Linux Elitists to make this happen.
There's no reason that Microsoft (and Adobe for that matter) couldn't make a boatload of money selling versions of their apps for Linux. So why don't they? Corruption.
It's not about Linux being able to run Windows programs, it's about Linux being easy enough to be supported by software vendors, without having them compile against dozens of different distributions and library versions. But every time someones tries to create some sort of standard, a thousand forks follow.
most computers are sold to OEMs and if an OEM pushes Linux Microsoft threatens to pull their OEM discounts. The CEO of Acer (Asus?) bitched about it publicly around the time netbooks took off.
On the plus side Linux _is_ competition. Microsoft was forced to drop prices substantially on a Windows license. On the downside this lead to them doing all sorts of nasty stuff to monetize Windows (subscription fees for business editions, installing demo software without permission, the Windows Store, etc, etc).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This should be a vendor problem. If there is a reason to run your software on Windows and Linux, consider supporting both, by design. Design it in such a way that it will run well on either system. Nothing worse than trying to use a piece of software in a non-standard way, almost always you end up working 2 full time jobs to work around it's quirks, or to find ways to make it work.
If it's not a thing that a vendor feels there is a reason to run it on linux, then don't. I'm sure if the community feels something is missing, it will start to work to fill the void.
People run linux because they want to be super-villians, not because they want to run office. And people run windows because they want to play games, not because they like it. People run on macs because their turtlenecks have cut the oxygen running to their brains... it's science.
Why? In order to run native windows software an emulator would be needed.
The better option is to find open source options for each of the windows type applications that are considered "essential".
Openoffice or what ever the current variation is, provides a majority of the applications typical users need.
Gimp provides another alternative, and so and so on.
Trying to run apps natively is folly. Better to get or make better alternatives to required functions.
Back in the day Wordstar was the required application until it was supplanted by Word. It can be done.
Also, don't go the dual boot route. Commit to linux and run it at all times. That is the way to find solutions to all the little programs people think they need.
No. So why should Linux be "fully compatible" with both?
Software can be cross-platform if that's one of the goals of the developer.
VLC is the best video player out there -- and it works for Linux/Windows/MacOS. So is Libre Office and Microsoft has even managed develop a cross-platform code editor -- and each one is in an entirely different programming language (C++/Java/Javascript respectively).
Will there be a day when developers mostly write cross-platform software? One can hope.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Oh wait, no, SOMEBODY DID do it: Steam. If you install Steam for Windows, Mac or Linux I think you can run any Steam game exactly the same on any of the three.
Nobody has created a Steam word processor or a Steam photo editor... but I can't see any compelling reason not to.
Take off every 'sig' !!
Visual Studio Code, not Visual Studio, two different things.
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
Windows 10 has implemented Linux system calls. You can run Linux apps on Windows.
Using what X server, if the app happens to be graphical? Microsoft doesn't provide one, and the free version of Xming hasn't been updated in a decade. Or would the app run in a localhost web server, with JavaScript in a web browser handling user interaction?
Linux comaptible with Windows Software, Windows Software on top of Linux Kernel it's possible only using a software like Wine wich is translation/emulation but is not native code to run (obviously) natively on Linux. And Darling emulator for OS X applications.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/08/os-x-apps-run-on-linux-with-wine-like-emulator-for-mac-software/
The Long awaited Year of Linux Desktop will come when big corporation like Autodesk, or Adobe will have good reasons to port their plethora of proprietary software to important Linux distributions. And Microsoft monopoly will cease to exist. Or Android will kill or replace classic Desktop with something else like convergent Desktop.
Or StallMan will
audacity. jack. rosegarden.
What exactly are average people running on their desktop/laptop that doesn't have a web-app equivalent? I swapped out my family computer for a Chromebox a couple of years ago and no one even really noticed because all they ever used was a web browser.
Yea,
ReactOS..
Google search that..
I can see "invisible once things are set up emulation layers" that let Windows and Mac apps run in Linux the same way that DOS apps used to run in 1990 versions of Windows, Windows 16-bit apps used to (and may still) run in Windows x86, Mac Classic 1990s apps ran in MacOSX, Mac OSX PPC apps ran in the early Intel versions of the Mac OS etc (this compatibility list is far from exhaustive).
Unless someone wants to throw tens of millions of dollars at the problem for several years in a row or the "ease" of making "Windows compatibility" or "Mac compatibility" goes way up, we will always be several years or a decade behind on the "compatibility" race.
So, will there ever be a Linux distro that runs almost all early-2018 Mac and Windows applications "as is" so they look like native Linux applications?
Sure, but I'm betting it's not until 2028 unless someone plunks down the big bucks first. Even then, it will take time to catch up.
By the way, you can run most popular 20+ year old PC and 30+ year old Mac operating systems and their programs quite nicely if you can get legal access to the Microsoft and Apple code (including Mac ROMs). In 30 years - maybe 10 - we will be able to say the same about early-2018 Windows and Mac programs.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The question should be will software ever become fully compatible with linux not the other way around. You don't see people using .exe files on macs...
This problem is mostly solved. Not only are there lots of games for linux, both FOSS and proprietary, but also good office productivity applications.
And if that's not good enough for you, there's web applications like Office360, QuickBooks Online, Google's office applications, even games. Just about everything nearly anybody cares about.
Most people who aren't using a linux desktop would be perfectly happy with one of the mac-like or windows-like desktop environments that run on linux, so even people who just want to use what they're used to are mostly just stuck out in the cold due to inertia.
The remainder is niche markets. Sure, you go ahead stay where you are until the market notices you're all on your own and drags you along.
> Could Linux ever be made to become fully compatible with all Windows and Mac software?
You have it backwards. Software runs on the OS, so it is the software's responsibility to run on the OS, not the other way around. Adobe would have to write CC for Linux for this to work. MS would have to write Office for Linux for this to work. Etc.
> What I mean is a Linux distro that lets you successfully install/run/play just about
> anything significant that says "for Windows 10" or "for OSX" under Linux,...
Well yes, that could technically be possible...
> ...without any sort of configuring or crazy emulation orgies being needed? ... but no, not without something happening behind the scenes. Emulation in one way or another is EXACTLY what would be required, if vendors don't want to write software for Linux. Even when vendors write their OWN layers for their OWN OSs (like Mac OS X's "Classic" mode for OS 9 -> OS X, or Rosetta for PPC to Intel) it's not perfect, so it is be effectively impossible for "Linux" to create PERFECT emulators for OS X and Windows. Like, 0.0000000000000001% chance of it happening. Like "A million monkeys on a million typewriters" impossible. Like "quantum computers spitting out infinite OSs per second" impossible.
> Macs and PCs run on the exact same Intel/AMD/Nvidia hardware as Linux.
Humans, cats, roses, and beetles all live on Earth, drink water, and breathe air. Why can't they all mate with each other?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
It's not really going to be perfect unless there's an abstraction layer (like a JVM or a browser) between the OS and the application. Native support is still important, but clearly less so than it was a decade ago.
-Dave
They already are compatible. Have been for decades. I save a text file on linux, open on my pc, I can read it. Linux machine can browse the same websites, edit the same files, leverage the same protocols... So what exactly are you asking for? Run a single app binary on linux mac/windows? Java.
Yeah that is an option. From what I understand I would need a MS Windows license to run in a VM... Don't want to do that.
The "doesn't run ____" is fixed by spending a little time looking at Linux software till you find a replacement.
Since I posted this list of applications that are not ported to GNU/Linux several years ago, Netflix has become ported. But the majority have not been. So what replacement would you recommend for each of the following?
Adobe Photoshop, including adjustment layers, print color matching, and full compatibility with PSD files you receive from clients or team members
Adobe Animate (formerly Flash), including exporting vector animations to HTML5
TurboTax
Stone Edge Order Manager
Sonic Mania
Diablo III
StarCraft II
Street Fighter V
Call of Duty: Black Ops III
In the future, market or MS/Apple-heavy-handed forces will coerce most applications to be dependent on only a small-by-today's-standards set of APIs.
Everything else will be either using non-OS-specific "outside code" such as portable libraries or "really outside" code such as internet-based or other non-local-machine-based code.
This is the way many phone apps work today: They are not much more than a front end to a web site or other internet-based resource. If the limited set of APIs needed to make such apps work were ported to Linux and and the hardware itself were virtualized or emulated, well, that's the bulk of what is needed for "it looks like a Linux app to the user" compatibility.
Some if not many phone apps are also written against cross-platform libraries so the vendor can sell to iOS and Android users with a mostly-common code base. If the library vendor has a Linux implementation and they write "glue/translation code" so that a non-Linux-binary can indirectly call the Linux version of the libraries, then, again, the bulk of the work has been done.
As far as MacOS and Windows applications go, we are far from there. However, if "walled garden stores" that enforce strict rules continue to gain popularity, I can see the day when 90+% of Windows and Mac applications that people use that don't come directly from Microsoft or Apple or hardware vendors are much easier to "seamlessly emulate" than today's mix of applications.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This is irrelevant because in a matter of years the OS as we know it will be gone. In fact like the old dumb terminal the PC will once again become something like that. Only with a cloud based system that will be accessed through a hardware platform running a basic GUI and have very little in the form of local storage. Much like Chrome OS only you will not be tied into a ecosystem.
Our entire ERP system is Windows based. Literally all of the software that runs our entire company. It works well.
I don't respond to AC's.
Install Microsoft Windows using Oracle VirtualBox and there is no need to dual boot anymore. II set-up my latest notebook to run Xubuntu Linux as the host operating system and use Microsoft Windows as a virtual machine via Oracle VirtualBox. I rarely use Microsoft Windows but come training courses require it. By tjhe wsy, I have been using GNU//Linux full-time on my computers since January 2000.
I use the Esri ArcGIS suite quite a lot in my work. There are open-source alternatives to many of its functions, but they're not always practical to use while maintaining interoperability with colleagues. That's the main one that comes to mind, but there are other spatial tools like Crimestat that I use on occasion that only have Windows binaries. It may be possible to run some of these things using Wine or whatever, but I haven't tried.
I have both a Windows 7 and an Ubuntu desktop with dual displays and use Synergy to share the mouse and keyboard between them, so for the most part I can use both systems fluidly. To transfer files between the two, I have a Windows share that I access via samba on the Ubuntu side. That's a little cumbersome at times, but it's way easier for me than dual boot and preferable to virtualization.
believe me.
lack of apps and high tech barrier are not the reason i hate linux on the desktop.
linux is preventing linux desktop adoption
Why shouldn't there be some kind of "App runtime" that provided a sandbox and basic UI components that were standardized across platforms?
There is. It's called the Common Language Runtime, standardized by Ecma International. Microsoft maintains .NET Framework, a CLR application player for Windows. An open source project maintains Mono, a CLR application player for GNU/Linux and macOS.
Oracle [bought a company that] previously tried the same thing with Java, but several policy missteps by Oracle have since dissuaded many from the Java platform.
Computer literate people with some tech skills also like to use it as their desktop OS.
No, People with a lot of tech skills who don't mind spending a lot of time manually adjusting things on their computer use Linux as their desktop OS. People with better things to do use Windows or OS X.
But most "everyday computer users" or "casual computer buyers" still feel they have to choose either a Windows PC or an Apple device as the platform they will do their computing on.
No, most "everyday computer users" or "casual computer buyers" don't know or care about Linux and those that do know there are too many things in Linux require a lot of tech knowledge and the ability to use the command line that they don't wish to learn.
This binary choice exists largely because of very specific commercial list of programs and games available for these OSs that is not available for Linux.
The problem is the mindset of the Linux faithful.
"Closed source applications are EVIL!"
"Software should be free!"
"We want source code!"
"You need help?!? RTFM, you fucking n00b!"
"No one should use Windoze! You want us to make Linux more user friendly and accessible? Fuck you, Windoze Luzer!"
Until Linux gets a larger desktop user base, those applications you want to see on Linux won't be available because there is no profit in it. Linux won't get a larger desktop user base until the community gets it's collective head out of it's ass. Until then, the only hope for Linux on the desktop is a killer app and I don't see that coming anytime soon.
Bottom line, almost all Linux development is geared toward server use and even the people who want to see Linux succeed on the desktop either can't or won't do what is necessary to see it happen.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I'd prefer that I know what code I'm running. Windows as so many back doors that the user isn't made aware of. I on the other-hand know every open port and remote connection going out, I'd rather virtualize Windows in isolation, and for when that doesn't cut it, I have a windows drive that's on my 'hot eject' SATA port for.. reasons.
I don't read AC
Rocksmith 2014 is the last program that I use regularly that requires windows and keeps me from switching. The other issue is time. Linux has continued to improve but it isn't the turnkey solution that windows is. The time it takes me to get all the little issues working stops me from using it. It also stops my extended family from using it. It can work 99% of the time but that one time it doesn't work they'll want windows back.
I've upgraded all my computers to Windows 10 Pro and have not noticed the issues with adverts, popups, or it automatically installing software that people are claiming. I'm sure it's happening but it's not yet annoying enough for me to get in a huff about it.
why dual-boot? A VM would serve just as well.
Dual booting has two advantages over a virtual machine that for some may outweigh the inconvenience of rebooting:
Use of existing OEM license The Windows software license agreement allows dual booting but not converting an OEM license included with your laptop or other pre-built PC for use in a virtual machine. Only a $120 retail license can do that. Reduced RAM use Use of two operating systems, one for the host and one for the guest, requires roughly twice the RAM compared to running the guest alone. If you have already maxed the RAM in your laptop, and you see more than 50 percent usage (other than disk cache) during normal use, you may not be able to fit the host and guest into RAM without thrashing swap. And even if you haven't, DRAM prices have trended upward for the past couple years.Linux will lose most of its security advantages if it ever runs Windows software off the shelf (especially those viruses, trojans and ransomeware).
Those emulation layers are PROTECTION from the scourge of Win32. If I ever need Windows, I'll do it in VirtualBox with a fresh dev VM from http://modern.ie/ then nuke the image the minute I'm done.
No professional is suffering through audacity, not if their time is worth anything. Rosegarden is hobbyist fun.
You mean... viruses, malware, spyware and all?
Why on earth should we want that?
...an actual plan.
People have made the switch. It can be done.
If we want it to be the new platform, we have to make it that reason. We have to pick a market segment that we want to go after, then we have to focus on that.
Lets say we pick the legal desktop as a target.
For that, we need:
- Central authentication and access control out of the box.
- Central printing out of the box
- Case management (Legal Case Management System, eLawOffice, ect)
- Billing / Accounting (GNUCASH)
- Libera Office
- Various PDF tools
Then all of those tools would need to work together.
Each desktop uses the central server (servers!) to authenticate and for access to shared resources automatically.
Each app uses that same central server for access and authentication automatically.
The apps should be able to play nice with each other.
The system should play nice with phone apps for vpn remote access.
Offer a private onion network for law firms that works out of the box
If it just works, if it gives them the tools they need and the support they need (standard ways, not the kitchen sink), it wouldn't be hard to take over that market.
Linux could take over that desktop space if the community wanted it to. That desktop space would serve as a springboard for many other desktop spaces. However, to get it, we would have to push a simple and standard method, and not try to support every option for every edge case. Thats not the linux community.
If only someone invented web based clients...
Games is a hard one admittedly but MS Office is easy: don't use it, it's just a giant bag of awefull anyway, it's the most unproductive productivity software I've ever seen.
I'm not a coder. I build my own PC's and install OS/software, do upgrades, scans and detail configs. The usual stuff, right. For me, I wish my PC could become a screwdriver. It's a tool, it allows me to do other stuff. Alas. I know enough to know how much I don't know. Over many years of using/building/trubbelshooting these infernal things, most of us acquire a fairly broad collection of compooter skills. I've dabbled a lilbit with Linux, enough to know I'd surely use it a lot more if I could. I know, it's simple and nice to surf the web, do business stuff, crunch data, run a server. Me, I only surf, the usual web stuff. And, play games. That's the bulk of what I do. I'm old, retired, and have plenty of "free" time, something work once kept me from. Now, I have this tremendous TOY, my PC. My compooter is configured for games, played on a 60in. HD screen. It's also great for the Web, Usenet, etc. And, it runs Win10. And, if I could run all of my games on Linux, and they look/play smooth and purty, I'd happily leave Windows. I look, periodically, for any news that Linux now plays today's PC games. Sadly, it appears that's not doable, or those that could do it don't. I know a few other oldfarts like myself that enjoy compooter games, esp. stuff like CoD, World of Tanks/Warships and ultra-realistic ground/air combat/casual flight and auto-racing simulators. In a recent discussion, changing to Linux came up, and it sounds like most of us would gladly change, esp. if it freed up some processor/memory resources that Windows and it's myriad associated drivers eat. There's a real, significant demand for a (reasonably)simple way to play all our Windows games in Linux, and it's more knowledgeable users, folks that accept/tolerate/learn from doing cfg stuff, as long as it ain't too convoluted and 'splained simply for us older fellers. Why isn't this sort of use/user considered? If the idea is to get Linux on more machines, in more faces, it's already doing most of the other compooter stuff folks do, so making it compatible with Windows games oughtabe in work.
Olphart at play. Ruck FepubliKKKans. Welcome to the Worldwide Idiocracy, y'all.
A better answer is no, it should not.
Visual Studio Code is the editor that comes with Visual Studio. But yes, that's what I'm referring to. I think it's a good editor, but the whole IDE obviously adds a lot.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
More and more, applications are being rewritten to run in a browser. The browser doesn't care what the underlying OS is and operates in basically the same way whether it is on Windows, Mac or Linux. Yes, it has a ways to go and some apps work better than others in a browser. But once that happens the operating systems war is over.
For a long time Linux had difficulties with video cards, network cards, and wireless adaptors. Now that linux is dominating the server space vendors are writing drivers to work with just about any card you can throw at it. The last frontier is full app compatibility. For most everyday users linux is just fine, given that there is less reliance on the command line than ever before.
If you are a gamer, or you want to run MS Project or Visio or Quicken then it's a different story. But hope springs eternal....
Format your drive and install windows.
Were you masturbating while you were writing this?
You can run stuff in virtual machines, that is a pretty good solution for now. The rest will take ages if it happens at all.
Here's a story that pertains to this. The AS/400 was developed as a sort-of smaller mainframe, cheaper to run and with a bunch of new ideas architected in. The new architectural ideas meant that all AS/400 software was custom written for the box. The only compatibility was with System/38 and eventually, System/36 emulation layers (those systems were direct predecessors to the AS/400 and close enough to bring emulation within reach).
Many years later, enough Unix support was added to allow some (not all) Unix programs to run on the system. However Unix support had to overcome the entrenched architectural ideas in the AS/400. To even work on the problem many people had to give up a certain attachment to the "AS/400 way of doing things." And that attachment was very firmly and deeply established. It was part of the AS/400 value proposition, the culture, and the received knowledge of being an AS/400 analyst.
This is the point of the story. Linux isn't just a technology, it's a culture. Linux people are holding on strong to FOSS ideals, they inherited lots of Unix culture, and there's a good bit of arrogance too. Linux advocates are certain their system is better than anyone else's and they particularly despise Windows. Why 'lower yourself', when you are already the 'best'?
The AS/400 culture was like that too. It takes some humility to admit other systems, other designs, other architectures have certain advantages. Moreover, to permit compatibility, you have to accept that supporting foreign software is a more viable way to get those advantages. Otherwise you are left to try to re-engineer those advantages into your system from scratch and often, that's just not in the cards.
It's a lot easier to lapse into envy. Or to assert that a conspiracy is holding your favorite system back. Or to claim that your system is going to dominate the world 'real soon now'. Or to claim that winning the software popularity war was never your goal. Or to move the goalposts by saying that dominance in a particular market segment means that you won.
Here's the prize though. Let's say you overcome the hubris, the fear of not knowing everything, and the daunting technical challenge. What happens is an explosion of creativity and innovation. New markets and opportunities open up. It can be a renaissance of learning and growth.
Visual Studio Code DOES NOT come with Visual Studio, it's not even written in the same language. I have 2013, 2015 Ultimate installed with all options and there is no Visual Studio Code with it. Visual Studio Code is all written in JavaScript.
Rhino 3D (or something of similarly clever interface and fast performance with GB sized 3D files). For 2D work the Rhino interface is quite different from but way above Autocad. If the Rhino 3D makers keep delaying there Linux port any longer I may start a direct competition. As an experience cad software programmer and overthe last few years full-time Rhino 3D user I may even be able to do better.
Someone asked me to compare Windows with OSX and my answer is that I can't because I use OSX almost all the time. The only exception is two programs that I need to run. One of them has ported to OSX though and I will be purchasing it for OSX and running it. The other program is Windows-Only. No evidence that it will run under WINE. So I run a WIndows 7 VM on OSX to run it. It leaks VM on Windows 10. I would be so happy to get rid of Windows. Would I move from OSX to Linux. Unlikely. Too much nice UI candy and Apps that sync well with iOS.
Wine is doing some fantastic progress, BTW. I am also rooting for Darling.
If both of these make a great impact, Linux will do well. IMO the reason Linux desktop isn't popular is because:
1. The graphics drivers suck totally.
2. The popular distributions have an upgrade process that sucks.
3. Complicated controls for hardware like Sound Cards. OSS was way easier than ALSA.
I'd like to see a good clean fix for those two issues. Given that, the development of tech like Snap, Wine and Darling will bring in some weight into Linux
This has been an issue for a long time. People need to understand why DrDOS sued Microsoft, won a $300,000,000 settlement, then got bought by Microsoft in the late 1980s. DRDOS was a competing operating system to MSDOS, and by all rights was bit for bit compatible, and yet faster and with fewer bugs. There was one thing that made it incompatible: a short little string in MSDOS (within the binary) that said "(C) 1985 Microsoft Corp". DRDOS was NOT allowed to put it in their software. Microsoft applications initially ran better on DRDOS for 1 version, then completely failed with an error message "operating system error, reinstall genuine MS software". The problem? Microsoft *WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY* to make their applications incompatible by looking for the string "(C) 1985 Microsoft Corp". DRDOS saw what they did, showed it to a judge, got $300,000,000, then got bought out. 30 years later, people are asking why Linux word processors are "still not compatible", or "only compatible with the previous version", and the answer is that Linux people are hitting a moving target. Every "compatible" is met with yet another "incompatible" one software release along. There is no real new functionality in most word processors in the last 20 years. Most everything that everyone wants is there. But its the "very latest and greatest function or new extra" that blows up. Its been that way for over 20 years. Its not Linux software they are trying to be incompatible with though. The linux market displaces some MS users every year, its true, and new Linux software is compatible with old Linux software. But the big kicker is New MS software with old Linux software, AND OLD MS SOFTWARE! You see, Linux nibbling at MS is a thing, but MS wants people to upgrade from old MS software to new MS software. Making the new stuff incompatible with the old (or ensuring that the old software can't read files made with the new version) forces customers who buy one copy of the new stuff to more-or-less replace everything in the place to be 'compatible'. This is how one "free" copy of a word processor given to the president of a company as a gift, a "latest-and-greatest" trojan horse, forces sales of thousands of copies to be "compatible" with the boss. Its a trick they have been using for (more than) 25 years. Does it work? Well you tell me. Which one is always on the Forbes rich list: 1) Linus Torvalds 2) Bill Gates. Go ahead, take a minute and think about it. Take your time.
Come back when Windows can run Mac apps and Mac can run Windows apps without "crazy emulation".
Tell that to all the big ERP and other enterprise software vendors. They are gradually changing but things like SAP still rely heavily on a fat proprietary client.
I'm writing this on Mac running Yosemite. With Parallels VM I can run the following OSs in a VM
Windows XP (walled off from the Internet)
Windows 10
Mac OS Sierra - for XCode 9
I'm installing High Sierra now
It's not as fast as having a native OS, but it's not too bad, so long as you have loads of Ram and an SSD. Unactivated Windows 10 is free.
On Linux you could run Windows 10 and the latest macOS in VirtualBox.
And yeah, I know this violates the EULA. The reason I got a Mac because I wanted to run XCode legally. Problem is that back when I got it I could buy a Macbook Pro mid 2012 for around the same price as an Asus Zenbook, i.e. $1099. It came with 4GB Ram and a 500GB SSD but I could upgrade to 16GB Ram and a 1TB SSD for a few hundred bucks. That means I can run a whole load of VMs without much lag. Now if I want a machine with that much Ram and storage I need to buy it with the machine because nothing is user upgradeable. And Apple charge a lot of cash for it, $2299
So suddenly rather than being around the cost of a Asus Zenbook and then a few hundred bucks for an upgrade I need to spend about 2x as much as an Asus Zenbook.
Running macOS legally is getting more and more expensive...
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
It would be hard to duplicate that level of dis-functionality in Linux.
Instead of changing Linux to render it compatible with the others, let's use the same multi platform open softwares.
I know, it's not possible in 100 % of the cases, but for example, it took me just few years to make my father switch:
- from M$ Office to OpenOffice, then LibreOffice
- I can't even remember what he was using before Mozilla Suite (or what was it's name ?). A bit later, Firefox and Thunderbird
- from Windows to Linux at one point
One universal point: whatever the OS is, he never know where he saves his files.
Totof
That's why I hope it'll always have a cage around it. You can run almost all Windows software on Linux now if you really want to. But most of us simply don't want that.
Been using Linux in some form since pre-1.0 kernel. Years ago I stopped using it as my main OS because quite simply, I got tired of constantly fixing multi-monitor setups and just getting the desktop to be stable. Sure there was large periods of time when things were fine, but always a hassle when upgrading hardware. The open source vs vendor supplied (if you were lucky to have a vendor to supply) drivers was always a tradeoff; gaining something but losing something else. Fortunately there are type-2 hypervisors now and huge ass monitors that can split the screen multiple ways.
Fuck Ajit Pai
This is actually where the industry is going, & why we have been evolving web standards to become more interactive. Data services are progressively becoming faster, cheaper an more available. Mobile devices are becoming progressively more functional (look at the Galaxy S8 docking station )
There will be a point in the not too distant future where all software will be delivered via web technologies & they effectively run on a browser. The browser will move back into the OS and the layered software you have on your machine will progressively disappear. [ Office 365 ] We have already seen this shift with mail and messaging apps.
At that point it will become irrelevant what platform you're working on: the browser will be your OS.
The only people interested in software on a local platform will be enthusiasts.
Google have been betting on this change and are driving it, Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall and re-invented their roadmap over the last 10 years, All the big disrupting companies are investing in web-based tech, to the point that Cisco [ Meraki ] are now selling network devices which are managed only through a web portal.
The Linux / Windows / OSX wars are fairly much irrelevant now, we just have an uncomfortable period where all that software we know and love is being left behind & soon will only be able to be used on "legacy" hardware.
Web based clients come with extra security problems, poor performance, and the problem of constantly changing browsers. We made a specific choice not to use web-based clients.
I don't respond to AC's.
You probably actually want the answer to the question "when will the software I care about run on Linux"?
And the answer is "if there is a market for it, developers will port their software."
There are a fair number of games available via Valve Steam for Linux, there would probably be more if more if more people bought games on Linux. Hopefully Valve will put some more time into SteamOS as Windows 10 S is a threat to Steam's business model.
One thing that might also help is to set your browsers user agent to a Linux. The low representation of Linux on netcraft is used by larger companies to justify not supporting Linux.
Microsoft and Apple still have the same attitude from the good old days of "It's not a new release until it breaks Lotus 1-2-3", and there's always the boatload of malware and spyware we don't want compatibility with.
In the meantime, I've used Linux as my primary desktop for the majority of the past two decades, and I don't even bother with dual-booting anymore. Why? You get a clean ecosystem of software right out of the box with all the popular distributions for office software, development, raster and line art, 3D modelling, mathematics, so on. The popular games are native or work well in Wine. If you're really hard up, a virtual machine and a second GPU with I/O bypass could see you through.
The trouble to migrate pays off with a lean, clean system that isn't riddled with spyware, and doesn't wake up at odd hours regardless of your settings to do Microsoft's bidding. It isn't license-restricted to your CPU - I've switched laptops simply by popping my SSD out of an old broken one into a new one and been fully up and running with my software and custom settings in minutes, without fuss.
I wouldn't give up those advantages just to run everything in Best Buy, and it's possible that, once over the speed bumps, you wouldn't want to either.
Hmmm... I misunderstood then. I've never installed Visual Studio Code as a standalone. I thought it was the same editor I installed with Visual Studio, but cut out of the IDE and opensourced. Apparently that's not the case. Now I kinda wanna download it and test.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Windows should conform to Linux, not the other way around. Microsoft has made an easily corruptible system, insecure, no package manager, just crap.
Go the other way.
Using what X server, if the app happens to be graphical? Microsoft doesn't provide one
X11, how quaint. Did you steal a Delorean and travel back to 1985?! Both Gnome and KDE are rapidly migrating to Wayland.
Using what Wayland server, if the app happens to be graphical? Microsoft doesn't provide one.
What WSL needs is to transparently switch backends to the Win32 implementation of GTK+ or Qt.
Likewise with SDL, Allegro, SDL 2, Allegro 5, and wxWidgets. I'm curious to see through what technical mechanism this sort of proxying could be made practical.
Nah. But seriously: nah.
That's not on "Linux"—which you seem to describe in monolithic terms and as if this monolithic community could magically sprout an appendage that does everything you want. There's already emulation. Some emulation software isn't terribly difficult to use. Most Linux users are still expected to read the documentation before expecting things to simply work.
Until Microsoft or Apple drop out of the desktop market, there will be no substantial incentive to make it any easier to run software built for those operating systems in a foreign operating system.
Half your list is games, there are now LOTS of good games that run on Linux. If you look around you can find games like those on your list.
But none that are network-compatible with those on my list. Unlike business software, whose users can collaborate through a shared file format, different games do not interoperate in multiplayer. A user would have to get all his friends to purchase a different game and switch from their preferred game to that (possibly inferior) game.
I don't know your use case for Stone Edge so kind of hard for me to find a drop in replacement.
Consider the e-commerce back end of a toy shop. Tasks include adding and updating product information, taking orders from customers in person (POS), importing customer orders from the seller's account on online sales channels such as Amazon, purchasing stock to cover existing and future orders (comprising making a purchase order with a distributor, adjusting the PO quantities based on the invoice, and receiving it to stock), updating stock quantity on online sales channels, allocating stock to orders, and mobile or web applications to pick, pack, and ship.
Photoshop can probably be replaced with GIMP. This again would require some learning and probably some plugins to get all the features you need.
In Photoshop, an adjustment layer is a layer generated by applying one or more filters to the pixels in layers below it. It automatically updates itself when the layers below it change. It's sort of like a spreadsheet, where a cell can contain a formula for its value, or a makefile, which applies a recipe to some files to create another file. A web search produces results showing that this functionality is highly desired by users of GIMP but not implemented, such as "How to create the equivalent of an Adjustment Layer in an editor that does not support it?". What plugin for GIMP automates this process of tracking dependencies on lower layers and applying a filter when they change?
Adobe Animate can be replaced by a number of animation tools. Again you would have to find best for your use case.
The features I'm looking for in a replacement for Adobe Animate include timeline-based editing, automatic inbetweening, rendering the finished animation to video, and exporting to HTML5 vector animation using Canvas or SVG (which is much smaller in bytes than video). Slashdot users often mention Synfig Studio as a replacement for Adobe Animate, but "export" in Synfig Studio means something completely different. If I wanted to animate and just render to video, I'd probably use Blender, but exporting to HTML5 vector animation is important to users on slow or capped connections to the Internet.
In the end though I am too lazy to do all your homework for you.
Then a measurable advantage of sticking with Windows, at least for a small business without the resources to hire a specialist in migration to GNU/Linux, is that sticking with familiar industry-standard software requires spending less time==money on doing homework.
The very worst case you use virtualbox and run a VM for that program.
Because this VM would require purchasing an operating system license, for the purpose of the article, this would correspond to Betteridge's answer: "no".
just use ninnle linux.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
I remember when some people were claiming that we'd soon be doing everything with web apps and with Java apps, which are "write once, run everywhere", and then platform-specific Windows or Mac or Linux programs would be obsolete. How long ago was that? Hint: Some people actually thought this would save the Amiga platform.
If instead you took all the resources required just to meet full compatibility with Windows, and instead put that into proper Quality Assurance for the most popular Linux distro and the software it most commonly depends upon (forking out all of those projects from their toxic communities, that hinder proper quality development...) - then Linux would simply obsolete all other platforms, as the de-facto standard operating system. The fact is, the quality of Linux is just not up to scratch. Until your everyday fuckwit can use it without any frustration, then it's a waste of breath to even be talking about any of this. That day won't come, until someone with tens of billions puts the money into paying a gigantic team, with the aim of un-fucking all of the problems with program quality and usability, across the most essential parts of the Linux ecosystem - while expecting fuck all in return. That's all there's ever been to it. The problem is the community, the incumbent developers and community, stuck in their ways, holding back all progress in this direction - such that it's going to require a Fuck Load of money, to get people to do things properly.
The whole point of Linux is to be _different_ from Windows, to be free and open source. The main point of Linux is NOT to be user friendly to the point that your grandma can use it without help. Every tinkerer out there thinks they have a better idea how to do each and every task that a computer does. Grandma doesn't care about all that, she just wants something that you can click and go.
The design of Windows and OSX are controlled from the top. Linux is controlled from the bottom. This is why Windows and OSX are relatively coherent and user friendly--this is a major goal of both companies. User friendliness is not on the top of the list of Linux attributes.
You could already run Linux apps on Windows, open source apps tend to get ported everywhere, and if not there's Cygwin
You know how they say there's no such thing as a stupid question?
Congratulations.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Good times! So MS has finally remembered how to kill a competitor like how they used to.
In this case, adopt the enemy API and certain key features users want, make their apps run on your platform, snuff the fuckers out by draining out the developer community.
You read it here first. This is the start of the end of Linux as anything more than bastion host and apache server.
You are smoking crack.
is for stupid.
I wrote a short, silly (C) program the other day. I ran it on a Mac and it kind of worked fine, but choked once in a while and stopped producing output. I had to Ctrl-C it. I wanted to troubleshoot it on Linux where I had proper dev tools installed. Unfortunately my Linux box broke. It would freeze and I had to reboot it. Turned out that my program had a bug and would go into an infinite recursion and allocate a lot of memory along the way. Mac continued to run without any problem, Linux had to be hard-rebooted. Hence I say Linux sucks on the desktop.
Free software is important. It motivated the desire to create the GNU operating system
Free software is important. The Linux kernel was released as free software.
Free software is important. It spurred on the coining of the term Open Source.
Free software is important. It inspires the creation of and protects a large variety of Free/Libre/Open Source software programs.
Proprietary software is software whose source code is not available to the general public. It is treated like a trade secret and hidden from the user. This software often and can have features that exploit, take advantage of, and collect information about you. Proprietary software also creates artificial scarcity through legal means. You would have a difficult time sharing a copy of Windows 10 with your friends, for legal and other reasons.
So it sounds a lot like your question is: "will GNU w/ Linux ever be as fully functionally as Windows or OSX?"
Will you be able to run skype, MSOffice, and other such programs natively on top of the Linux kernel.
As others have said, perhaps; but, highly unlikely.
However, I'd like to add that the most important reason why this isn't so and shouldn't be so, is that Linux, the GNU system, and other free software has a specific ethical and moral imperative. At the very least with out the ethical, moral or philosophical imperatives; these collections of free software and or open source software have a general desire to share their programs and the source code with others. Windows and OSX are proprietary systems. Their goal is to make profite (often through exploitation), not share. If you happen to feel your life has been enriched as a side effect of their efforts and your purchase or use of their related softwares; then, that's that.
However, in very simple terms, I think you miss the point of free/libre software and or open source software. In simple terms the point is creating, sustaining, and contributing to a community focused on sharing and respect for the user. Free Software is software that allows you to run the program as you wish, have access to the source code and be able to modify it, make copies and share them, and distribute copies of any modifications you make.
So if you decide you like the "Devuan" distribution of GNU w/ Linux, you can tell some one else and they can download it. You can download it and give a hard copy to some one else. You could download the whole thing, make your own modifications, and redistribute your modified version, if you wanted to go that far.
AND, the most important part, is, you, to a large degree, have the ability to make free software programs more functional, and user friendly, if you want. We all have that option and ability to a certain degree (which can be largely limited by hardware makers and their relationships with proprietary software developers).
So Windows and OSX had thousands, then milllions, then billions of dollars behind their efforts. The free software movement and other developers had and have much less to work with; and have still managed to accomplish A LOT, by my standards any way.
Microsoft on the other hand is trying to fight to keep it's user base by doing all sorts of things...
You may also be interested in supporting the REACT OS project.
However, I would stress the importance of understanding the goals and aims of Free Software and open source software. The idea is a community of sharing, non exploitation of users, and software freedom. In a very general way of thinking about it, it's about taking back and protecting control of the computing we do, to be in control of our computing. Or in an even more general way of thinking, it's about having options, not being limited and confined... Having freedom or a certain degrees of freedom much larger than any proprietary software vendor's software could offer.
If it will ever be possible to run programs on multiple OSes I guess some kind of container instance would be needed.
The day that Linux can run x86 and X84 programs compiled for Windows is the day that Windows dies.
I'm like a lot of people in that I have a large collection of specialist software that currently only runs on Windows. I hate Windows 10 and won't use it. I'm not running corporate spyware on my machines. Currently I've got thee XP machines and a Windows 7 laptop as these are the operating systems that support the software I run. There are no Linux/OSX equivalents for the programs I want to run. Hell the stuff on the XP boxes doesn't even run on 7 and above.
The day I can run these programs on Linux, or ReactOS, is the day that I bin Windows for ever.
It's nice to dream :)
MacOSX is already simultaneously several "Linux" distributions (fink, port, brew) without using the Linux Kernel. Windows NT (I like this old name) is a capable POSIX kernel too, it is just starting remembering it lately (Linux subsystem in Windows X).
http://a10onlinegames.com/russ... vist us...
I saw this movie where the girl says, "You can't win by fighting against what you hate. You win by fighting for what you love."
There was also a bit in that movie about "letting it go".
Let it go man, let it go.
It's drivers. Companies want to keep their drivers in a black box so that they don't give away their proprietary stuff.
Drivers are the issue. It's why Photoshop and Linux aren't as compatible as they obviously should be.
Drivers.
The people who claim they want it only want a free of charge OS.
Will all software be able to run on all the things? Well, that is the goal of open source and all that is required for this to happen is that the proprietary companies release all the source for their libs and API's.
What is an OS? If you use containers or VMs or Snaps or whatever to carry all the local-system-dependent stuff, what really needs to run on bare metal? That's the hypervisor, which can be pared down from your favorite current OS.
But if each app then carries around its own GUI system, what's to keep them coherent for the poor user? So maybe you need to think of the GUI as part of the hypervisor... And then you're back to ground zero, where we are right now.
If you don't have a common user experience, you don't have much compatibility.
Fiat Lux.
You don't really need to buy one. Windows 10 runs fine with no key number input. I've done it on VirtualBox without screwing around with some "hacking" program, just pure "tell MS I have no key number" and let it continue.
It was surprisingly easy based on prior experience with Windows XP installs.
'doze? Wine. Much better than past days, but still not quite there.
... it's all just pushing buttons.
OSX? Already Linux-adjacent, being based on BSD.
Given the vastly greater ability to modify 'nix to suit ones personal tastes (keyboard shortcuts, etc.), one could *mostly* make it work just like 'doze, but why?
Certain things would have to be relearned, such as paths that do not have colons in them with delimiters going the other way.
If one can handle such cosmetic changes, it doesn't really matter. 'doze, 'nix, Mac
No.
Long answer: MS and Apple will never let anybody play in their playground that will take away market share. 100% compatible Linux is such a threat to their bottom line. If they have to, they will require the OS to be "always connected" to call in to verify it's on their OS before getting permission to run the software. Their gaming platforms needing it just a prelude to this.
The IBM PC moved us away from mainframes and in the last 10 years or so the "Cloud" is moving us right back to it.
I, for one, welcome our new OS overlords. All Hail Saint Bill and Saint Steve and their Infinite Wisdom!
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
No.
& please donâ(TM)t. Iâ(TM)m a Mac user & even I can see the damage Android has done to Linux since itâ(TM)s release...
Linux is about Linux. There is an an api called wine, even then it isn't there to make Linux Windows and Mac compatible.
I think most users want their Linux PC to be unique. They don't want their machine to be a Windows PC or Mac PC.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Given that *Windows* isn't fully compatible with Windows software I feel this is unlikely...
Linux will never become fully compatible with Windows and Mac software, just as Windows will never become fully compatible with Mac software, and Mac will never become fully compatible with Windows software. Here are some reasons why:
1. Microsoft and Apple both need to make money. If Linux, being free, were just like them, they would lose market. Therefore, if Linux became just like them, the cheese will move.
2. Linux does not have 100% compatibility as a goal. It's not necessary for Linux's success. And make no mistake, Linux has succeeded. The only significant market where Linux is not a MAJOR player is the desktop. Supercomputers? Check. Servers? Check. Home automation? Check. Telephony? Check.
3. People who try Linux want it to be "better", for various values of "better". This demands that it be DIFFERENT. Read "Linux is NOT Windows", http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
4. Linux is built on a different worldview. Read "In The Beginning Was The Command Line", http://cristal.inria.fr/~weis/info/commandline.html
I don't want any of that crap polluting my Linux. I've used zero Windows and Mac software since I started using Linux full time 11 years ago, and I don't want it. If there's a distro that includes a super Wine I guess that's ok, as long as it is neatly and strictly kept separate from the kernel and the core components of everything else.