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?

Comments

Re: Yes and No

[WarJolt]

The question is malformed. Will Windows and Mac ever be made compatible with Linux?

Windows 10 has implemented Linux system calls. You can run Linux apps on Windows.

Wrong Question

[ipb]

Could WIndows and Mac ever become fully compatible with Linux software?

Re: Yes and No

[Junta]

I suppose the goal is 'can linux desktop become the universal application platform' and the answer is theoretically yes, practically, no.

For OSX apps, there hasn't even been much of an interest in theory. GNUstep had an injection of liveliness for people wanting to make at least code compile for OSX and Linux, but that enthusiasm died out. It never ever began to think about binary compatibility.

For Windows apps, sure, wine has been doing it's job admirably, but it's chasing a moving target that has much more resources than it does.

Now the phenomenon you mention speaks to another possibility: kernel system call emulation and just use the Windows/OSX system as-is. This is of limited utility as there isn't a supported/licensed way to do this. It's one thing to borrow the userspace of a free operatiing system, but doesn't really work for closed-source applications.

Re:What X server on Windows 10

[postbigbang]

One day a VM or container will contain enough guts to safely run the apps in less than a hypervisor mode. Until then, the answer for all three is: Not really. Better still, it shouldn't happen. One flaw in Windows affects Windows, but rarely MacOS or Linux/BSDs. One well-done flaw can kill/maim one host, but not all three.

We survive.

Re:Yes and No

[DickBreath]

A pirated Windows is not zero cost. Microsoft does everything possible to make it have lots of costs in terms of workarounds and inconvenience. Or it just flat out failing at an inopportune time.

Yes, Linux is zero cost. So it is definitely cheaper than the non-zero cost of pirated Windows. But Linux is also superior. The only reason for Windows is the legacy software.

A significant fraction of people who don't use computers in their job get by with chromebooks. A whole chromebook generation of school children is also growing up.

Re:Yes and No

[techno-vampire]

And it is unusable garbage (unless you're one of those weirdos who *LIKES* to do everything the hardest way possible).

Wrong, wrong, wrong, utterly wrong. About a decade or so ago, my sister, who knows how to use a computer but not how to do any troubleshooting asked me to convert her system from Windows to Ubuntu. Since then, she's asked me for computer help about once or maybe twice a year, mostly about system upgrades. Aside from that, It Just Works.

About three years ago, I did the same for a friend's wife because he doesn't know Linux. Again, It Just Works and she's never needed any assistance. If you can't get Linux to work, either you have hardware problems or you're doing something wrong, and I've no idea which it is in your case.

Re:No

[admin7087]

Java in the 90s (Java applets) by Sun was probably the last serious attempt to break the application barrier. It didn't work, because Apple and Microsoft put in artificial hurdles, little incompatibilites and a vast number of platform-specific code. Web browsers as a platform are somewhat of a half-hearted and technically even worse attempt to do the same. I'd say that closest to cross-platform is Qt. But you still need to compile binaries for each platform.

The only way to break the application barrier would maybe to create a very good, easy to use, multi-language cross-platform application framework and legally protect it very aggressively against the introduction of any incompatibilities and platform-specific libraries.That won't happen for many reasons. First, the GUI user experience would have to be unified to a smallest common denominator. Second, such a license would be incompatible with common free software licenses like the GPL and e.g. FSF has zero interest in this, they want free software, not integration with proprietary platforms. Third, companies with like Apple, Google, Microsoft would probably prohibit such a framework or applications created with it from running on their platforms, or find a way to make the user experience miserable (e.g. not allowing the developers of such a framework full access, slowing down programs, not allowing apps in their app stores, etc.).